Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bridlington Corporation Bill,

Dewsbury Corporation Bill,

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,

Manchester Royal Infirmary Bill,

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill,

St. Helens Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Grosvenor Estate Bill [Lords],

Samaritan Free Hospital for Women Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered this evening, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Knutsford Light and Water Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; an Amendment made:

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third Time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

The Maidens and Coombe Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Burghead Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

London and North Eastern Railway Order

Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain DOWER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement with regard to the proposed negotiations at Simla with regard to Japanese trade competition in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): It is expected that discussions will be held in India between representatives of the Japanese and Indian Governments. Preliminary conversations with the Japanese Consul-General are already taking place in India.

Captain DOWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is a, chance of our Government being represented in these negotiations, which may very seriously affect British exports into India?

Sir S. HOARE: Conversations are going on with reference to the negotiations as a whole. I fully realise the importance of the negotiations from every point of view, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that we shall not neglect the considerations.

RAILWAY WORKERS' UNIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the charges of victimisation of members of the railway workers' union in India; and will he cause inquiries to be made into these charges?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member will specify the charges to which he refers, I will consider the propriety of making inquiries from the Government of India.

CENTRAL PROVINCES (BERARS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, before coming to any decision regarding the Berars, he will take into consideration the fact that the representatives of the Berars in the Central Provinces legislative council have expressed their opposition to the proposed retrocession of the province to His Highness the Nizam?

Sir S. HOARE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the answers which I gave to his questions on the 1st May he will see that there is no proposal for the retrocession of Berar to His Exalted Highness the Nizam.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the speech which His Highness, the Nizam, recently made in India referring to some of the conclusions in this case, and can we have an assurance that this House will be as early as the Council of the Nizam in possession of the report when they have come to a decision?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not seen the speech to which the right hon. and gallant Member refers. I shall be ready to give an answer in the House as soon as I have definite information upon which to base it.

Sir A. KNOX: Is there absolutely no truth in the report that the sovereignty of the Berars is to be retroceded to His Highness the Nizam?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no question of retroceding sovereignty. There is no question of sovereignty. The sovereignty is the sovereignty of the Nizam.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not true that negotiations are in progress with the
Nizam and have been for the last two years on this subject?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. I have said so six or seven times in answer to questions by the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there not a possibility of the natives of Berars acquiring rights as British subjects and being put on a par with the rest of British India?

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. and gallant Member is raising the kind of question that is now under discussion. Obviously, I cannot give him an answer on a question of that kind until the discussions are over.

WAR PENSIONS.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have received the report of the Legislative Assembly Committee appointed to consider the question of Indian war pensions; and whether he can state what action they propose to take in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not yet received any official information on the subject.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report. is likely to be received?

Sir S. HOARE: I have looked into the question, and I think it ought to be received in the comparatively near future.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT PAYMENTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have considered representations received from Indian chambers of commerce protesting against the use of Indian silver stock for repayment of British debts due to America; and whether he can state the nature of the reply given to them?

Sir S. HOARE: A Press note was issued on the subject by the President of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. But I have no information regarding any action by the Government of India in regard to it.

CARLTON HOTEL, SIMLA (COMPENSATION CLAIM).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India, in view of the application that has been made to his Department for the reconsideration of the claims of Mr. Percy W. Fitz-Holmes in respect of the requisitioning by the Government of India of the Carlton Hotel, Simla, in 1918, 1919, and 1920, if he is aware that the hotel was left in such a state of dilapidation that Mr. Fitz-Holmes could not afford the outlay necessary to recondition the hotel and has, in consequence, suffered severe loss; and will he now reconsider the whole matter?

Sir S. HOARE: The decision on this case was reached after arbitration proceedings in India in 1920, when all the circumstances were fully examined. They were again reviewed in 1922 and 1929 when Mr. Fitz-Holmes memorialised the Secretary of State. I regret that I can find no grounds for re-opening the decision that was confirmed by my predecessors.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded Mr. Fitz-Holmes is totally inadequate?

Sir S. HOARE: The case has been fully considered and from time to time my predecessors have had to say that they cannot reopen the question. I have looked into the papers, and I am satisfied that this gentleman had a very fair arbitration, and that the points mentioned by the hon. Member were taken into account.

COTTON DUTIES.

Captain FULLER: 2.
(for Sir JOHN HASLAM) asked the Secretary of State for India whether, as the time is now opportune for mutual arrangements being made between the Government of India and ourselves for a large preferential tariff to be accorded to the better class of cotton goods exported from this country in return for the large preference we give to goods imported from India, he will now state what further action it is proposed to take?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The duties on cotton piece goods imported into India from this country are generally speaking
as much as 50 per cent. lower than those on similar foreign goods, and India gives differential advantage on large classes of other British goods. The future of the Indian cotton duties is now under the consideration of the Government of India.

PUNJAB MAGISTRATES.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state whether the three Indian gentlemen who were recently dismissed from the magistracy in the Punjab, on account of bribery in the discharge of their judicial duties, were given a full inquiry before their services were dispensed with; and whether their sentences were concurred in by the judges of the High Court in the Punjab?

Mr. BUTLER: A request for a report on the matter was addressed to the Government of India on 12th July, but there has not yet been time for a reply.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask my lion. Friend whether, in view of the statement recently made by the Secretary of State to the Joint Select Committee that he had had no complaints of corruption, he will give instructions that any cases of corruption occurring in future in the administration or the judiciary arc to be reported to him more promptly?

SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that leaflets of a seditious nature are being distributed in large numbers in various vernaculars in Northern India, and that in various districts, under cover of a campaign to end untouchability, Congress agents are collecting funds for carrying on propaganda on behalf of their political programme; and what steps are being taken to deal with these activities?

Mr. BUTLER: I receive from time to time information of such attempts at seditious propaganda. I can assure my Noble Friend that the local authorities take appropriate steps to deal with it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will my hon. Friend make specific inquiries into these matters, because I think that Members, hearing the right hon. Gentleman the other day in the Debate, would hardly believe that there were matters such as this, of which I have information, going on?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that everything that comes to his attention is attended to by the local authorities in India. If my Noble Friend will give me any specific instances, they will be attended to.

AUXILIARY FORCE (RAILWAY BATTALIONS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India the establishment and actual strength of Europeans and Anglo-Indians, respectively, in the railway battalions of the Indian auxiliary force in India in 1920 and 1932, respectively?

Mr. BUTLER: I am circulating figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The strength returns of the various units of the Indian Auxiliary Force do not differentiate between Europeans and Anglo-Indians. In 1920 there were 19 railway battalions in the force. No information is available regarding their enrollable maxima, but the actual strength was 13,160 of all ranks. In 1932 there were 18 battalions with enrollable maxima of 14,792 and an actual enrolled strength of 13,004 including reserves and cadets.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the negotiations begun in January, 1927, with the Portuguese Government on the subject of flag discrimination?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Agreement has been reached in principle with the Portuguese Government for the abolition of the discrimination upon certain terms. These terms have been embodied in a draft agreement which it is hoped to submit shortly to the Portuguese Government.

BRITISH GOODS (BROADCAST ADVERTISING).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, with a view to encouraging the sale of British goods abroad, he will call the attention of British firms to the facilities that may be obtained for
advertising the sale of their goods and merchandise through the medium of foreign broadcasting stations?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am, of course, in favour of any measure calculated to encourage by legitimate means the sale of British goods abroad, including the use of radio broadcast announcements where these are customary. There are, however, certain types of international broadcast advertising and propaganda which are open to objections, as will be indicated by my right hon. Friend, the Postmaster-General, in reply to later questions on the paper.

Sir W. DAVISON: As this is very important to British traders in view of the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation, owing to their obligations to subscribers, do not allow advertising, do I understand that so long as it is only a proper trade advertisement, there is no objection on the part of the British Government; in fact, that the British Government welcome ordinary traders advertising their goods, as long as it is not political propaganda?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait to hear answers to other questions on the Paper. Broadly, his statement is correct. There is no objection to broadcasts in the language of the country. That is one clear matter to which there would be no objection, for example, no objection to British broadcasts in France in French.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the future of the work now clone by and the grants now given by the Empire Marketing Board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS. (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer to the answer which I gave on 19th July to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), to which I am not in a position to add at present.

Mr. DUNCAN: If I repeat this question on Thursday—which will be the last opportunity of doing so before November —will the right hon. Gentleman then be able to give a more satisfactory reply?

Mr. HANNON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he has taken into consideration the representations made by various public bodies on the importance of continuing, in some form or other, the work which has been so admirably done by the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. THOMAS: No words can adequately express the value of the work of the board, but it was instituted as a substitute for preferences to the Dominions, and the British taxpayer found all the money. We are anxious to continue the work, but we are not prepared to continue to feed the baby.

Mr. HANNON: When my right hon. Friend speaks of "feeding the baby," will he remember that British agriculture has benefited considerably from the activities of the Empire Marketing Board; and will he keep that very important consideration in view?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, but any advertisement of or encouragement of the British point of view can always be dealt with and paid for by ourselves and I repeat that it would be unfair for the British Government to foot this bill for something which is designed for Imperial purposes and not necessarily for British purposes only.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Before this question is finally settled, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the other side of the question: that the more you stimulate the purchase of Imperial products, the more surely you stimulate trade within the Empire?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, I wholeheartedly agree, and the more the Dominions stimulate buying from us the more it will encourage Empire trade—and so they will equally be encouraged by that consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN: May I repeat my supplementary question? If I put down my question on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a more satisfactory answer?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand there is to be a Debate on Thursday, and if my hon. Friend makes a speech I shall probably refer to it.

Mr. DUNCAN: 44 and 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1)
if he will make a statement regarding grants to be paid to the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, and the East African research station, Amami, Tanganyika territory, after the termination of the periods covered by the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board;

(2) what is to be his policy regarding grants towards research, marketing, economic investigation, and marketing intelligence in the Colonies in continuation of the work now done by the Empire Marketing Board which comes to an end in September; and, if grants are to be given, from what fund will they be payable?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the Colonies (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am fully alive to the importance of arranging for the continuance of services in the Colonies of an essential nature which have hitherto been financed from the Empire Marketing Fund. The whole question is under active consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement in regard to it.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into special consideration the admirable work that is being done by the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad, and will he make any concession that he can to ensure the continuance of that work?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I think it is very plain from the answer I have given that I regard the work of the Imperial College o f Agriculture at Trinidad as absolutely vital to the Colony.

INDIAN COTTON INDUSTRY.

Captain DOWER: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the first report of the Indian Cotton Inquiry Committee; and whether, as a result of the views expressed therein that Lancashire might find Indian cotton an adequate substitute for American, he proposes to take any action to assist the promotion of such development?

Dr. BURGIN: I have seen the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The present position is that the Indian Cotton Inquiry Committee are in communication with the Indian
cotton-growing interests with a view to the elucidation of technical and other questions affecting the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire. The Government are following with close interest the work of the committee, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that no opportunity will be lost of supporting the movement, but I do not think that at the present stage there is any definite action which the Government could usefully take in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

RAILWAY LOANS.

Mr. MOREING: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the heavy arrears outstanding on Chinese railway loans, whether he will cause representations to be made to the Government of China that they should without delay summon a financial conference of representatives of the various groups of bondholders to discuss and decide on a scheme to secure the liquidation of the debt in regular instalments?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that it would be useful at the present moment to press for the adoption of the procedure in question. The suggestion will, however, be borne in mind should it appear opportune to do so in the future. Meanwhile, the opportunity has been taken of the presence of the Chinese Minister of Finance in this country to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation.

Mr. MOREING: 14.
asked the Secretory of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been able to obtain from the Government of China an assurance that the railway revenues allocated for the service of railway loans shall not in future be diverted to other purposes?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the Peking Mukden Railway, the Chinese Government have given an assurance that there will be no future repetition of the allotment of funds of the railway to supplement military requirements. In the case of other railways no specific instances of diversion of funds have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend. His Majesty's Minister has, however, made
continual representations to the Chinese Government from time to time as defaults occurred, and will lose no suitable opportunity of impressing on the Chinese Government the importance of maintaining their obligations to their creditors.

BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM.

Sir A. KNOX: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Minister in China regarding the still unpaid claims of Mr. W. J. Black for damages incurred during the Nanking incident of 24th March, 1927. at which time Mr. Black was living at Puchen, opposite Nanking, in the employ of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway Company; and whether, as his claim was recognised by the Chinese Nationalist Government and assessed by the Sino-British Commission appointed for the purpose, and as other claims in connection with the Nanking incident have been paid, he will state why Mr. Black's claim is still unpaid?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. The Pukow Puchen claims, including Mr. Black's claim, were excluded from consideration by the Sino-British Nanking Claims Joint Commission on the ground that Pukow and Puchen were not at the time of the Nanking incident within the administrative area of the Nanking municipality. The personal claims were, however, later assessed separately by certain members of the Commission. It has therefore been impossible to press these particular claims under the Nanking settlement. My hon. and gallant Friend may, however, rest assured that appropriate action will be taken to deal further with Mr. Black's and other Pukow Puchen claims as soon as a suitable opportunity offers itself.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not time that the National Government of China acknowledged the justice of this claim, and, as it is now six years since the man sold his property, is it not time that we pressed for payment?

Mr. EDEN: They were excluded from the Nanking area. The hon. and gallant Member can be assured that we have not lost sight of the matter.

DISTRICT COURT, SHANGHAI.

Mr. NUNN: 20 and 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received any report from
His Majesty's Minister in China on the progress of the promised negotiations for the more efficient working of the district court at Shanghai;
(2) whether he will ensure that, in the projected negotiations for the better working of the district court at Shanghai, His Majesty's Minister in China shall avail himself at all times of the assistance of the Crown Advocate?

Mr. EDEN: No negotiations on the subject have taken place or are in contemplation. According to a report received from 'His Majesty's Minister, however, the question of carrying out the assurances which the Chinese Government gave in connection with the prolongation of the existing agreement is engaging the active attention of the Ministry of Justice. A report has been submitted to the latter by their legal adviser, and his recommendations, of which His Majesty's Government have not received any detailed information, are now being considered by the Chinese authorities. His Majesty's Minister will, of course, continue to observe the situation closely, and should he deem legal advice desirable, he will naturally avail himself of the assistance of the Crown Advocate.

Mr. NUNN: Is His Majesty's Minister taking the earliest opportunity of seeking the advice of the Crown Advocate

Mr. EDEN: I am sure that the Minister will do so if he is convinced that there is a case for it.

BRITISH LEGATION.

Mr. NUNN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has further considered the desirability of removing the British Legation in China to Nanking or, at least, of ensuring that His Majesty's Minister shall reside permanently at Nanking or Shanghai; and, if not, whether he will do so?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has carefully considered the question. He does not, however, consider that any change in the existing arrangements is at present either necessary or desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

METROPOLITAN-VICKERS COMPANY.

Mr. HALES: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since
the arrival in this country of Mr. Thornton and Mr. Macdonald, any information has been obtained by his Department, further to the White Papers already issued, regarding the statement, alleged at the trial to have been signed by these two men, to the effect that spying operations in Russia had been carried on by a managing director of the Metropolitan-Vickers Company; and whether he can make any further statement to the House?

Mr. EDEN: Both gentlemen have furnished reports of their experiences; and, while, as has been explained in previous answers, His Majesty's Government now regard this case as closed and consequently do not propose to make public the information contained in these documents, it can be stated generally that they confirm and amplify the knowledge of His Majesty's Government as to the genesis of the alleged confessions. This of course is in accordance with my right hon. Friend's explicit statement on the kith April that:
None of these men has ever been employed directly or indirectly in connection with any branch of our Intelligence Service. None of them has ever supplied any information to any such branch. None of them has ever been paid or promised any reward for such information, or has been supplied with any money to obtain it. None of them has ever made any report to or on behalf of our Intelligence Service. All the above statements are equally true of the Metropolitan-Vickers Company itself. That is to say, the company has not and never has had any connection with our Intelligence Service whatever.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Under-Secretary tell us how the Foreign Secretary can be so positive in this matter when the personnel of the Secret Service is completely unknown to Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. EDEN: So far from being uncertain, my right hon. Friend is completely convinced of the accuracy of the statement he made.

Mr. MAXTON: I merely asked how it happens that he can be so positive.

Sir A. KNOX: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Russian employés of the firm of Metropolitan Vickers are still in prison in Russia 7

Mr. EDEN: According to my latest information I understand that two
Russian employés from the company's Moscow office are now serving terms of imprisonment, and one employé from the Leningrad office is believed to be in prison.

Sir A. KNOX: Can the Under-Secretary say whether there is any possible way of helping these people, who are no doubt as innocent as our own people?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that our locus standi is only in respect of British subjects.

Sir A. KNOX: Surely Metro-Vickers could interfere and not take on any others in their place?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the man employed at Leningrad is a Russian or a British subject?

Mr. EDEN: He is a Russian subject.

Mr. COVE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what purpose and at whose expense, in the course of the recent trial in Moscow of the Metropolitan-Vickers engineers, extracts from the reports by Mr. A. J. Cummings, appearing in the "News Chronicle," to the effect that the accused Englishmen were well and cheerful, were telegraphed by the Foreign Office to the British Embassy in Moscow; whether the representations concerning these reports made to Mr. Cummings in Moscow by the British Embassy were made on the instructions of the Foreign Office or on the initiative of the Embassy itself; and what purpose such representations were intended to serve?

Mr. EDEN: The facts of this matter are as follow: On the 12th April a representative of the "News Chronicle "enquired at the Foreign Office whether it could be ascertained that Mr. Cummings was in fact the author of the following passage in his message received on the previous night:
Accused Englishmen are in good health and spirits and indications are that trial will be conducted fairly in true sense of word in accordance with Soviet law.
In conformity with this request a telegram was accordingly sent on the same day to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow repeating the passage and
asking him to ascertain and reply urgently whether Mr. Cummings had in fact used these words. It also seemed to us doubtful whether Mr. Cummings would have made such positive statements after only two days residence in Russia, and with no previous knowledge —so far as was known—of the country or the language. Mr. Strang replied on the 13th April by a telegram stating that Mr. Cummings had confirmed to a member of his staff that the passage quoted was as he had sent it.
I have now obtained from the official concerned an account of the interview with Mr. Cummings from which it is clear that Mr. Vyvyan's action was confined to carrying out instructions sent to His Majesty's Embassy as the outcome of a request from the newspaper which Mr. Cummings represented.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is Mr. Cummings the gentleman who has given publicity to the alleged confession, referred to in the previous question'?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is it net a fact that Mr. Vyvyan asked Mr. Cummings whether he considered he was playing the game in sending a report of that kind to England?

Mr. EDEN: I have told the House what passed, from the account which I have had, and I think the House may judge all other matters relative to it in the light of that account.

Mr. COVE: Can the Under-Secretary state what Mr. Cummings said to Mr. Vyvyan?

Mr. EDEN: I am not responsible for Mr. Cummings.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Had Mr. Cummings time to study Soviet law in the two days?

BRITISH MISSION (VLADIVOSTOCR).

Sir W. DAVISON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any compensation has been received from the Soviet Government in respect of the property belonging to the British Government in the British mission at Vladivostock which was appropriated by the Soviet authorities in 1931?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. The property in question was purchased in 1931 by a local firm, but before they could remit the
purchasing money to His Majesty's Government they were forced to close down and their business was taken over by the Soviet shipping organisation Sovtorgflot. Efforts were at once made to recover the money, which Sovtorgflot admitted was standing to the credit of His Majesty's Embassy in the books of the Company. As no satisfaction could be obtained in this way, official representations were made to the Soviet Government in July last year. Further representations were made in the following September, and as recently as the 25th May last His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires again pressed the Soviet Government for a settlement of this claim.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we really to understand that the money for this property is still owing to the British Government; that they have allowed it to remain owing, without insisting on it being paid, and that at the same time they are entering into negotiations with the Soviet Government?

Mr. EDEN: My Friend will see that we have not allowed it to remain; that we are continuing and shall continue to press for payment.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will more active steps be taken to see that money belonging to the British Government is paid?

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. LEVY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated cost to the Exchequer of holding the World Economic Conference in London?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to questions on this subject on the 18th May and the 17th July in which he will find the position stated as clearly as it is possible to state it at present.

Mr. LEVY: May I ask if it is proposed to maintain the facilities at Kensington, or the major part of them, until the Conference reassembles in the autumn?

Mr. EDEN: That is not a. question which I can answer.

Mr. HANNON: Will any statement be made after the close of the Conference as to the actual cost to this country of these deliberations?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member will put the question down, I will give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGGS AND POULTRY.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any emergency measures with regard to the present situation of egg and poultry producers?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The present position of egg and poultry producers is receiving consideration, but I regret I am unable to make any statement as to any emergency measures which may be found to be practicable. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have now respectively received requests for the appointment of a Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and the matter, particularly in regard to the Scottish position, is receiving our close consideration.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be in a position to make a statement when the House reassembles in November?

Major ELLIOT: Oh, yes; I hope so.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the importance of stopping this dumping of poultry and eggs, especially from Denmark, and will he take immediate action under the Marketing Act, as he has power to do, a scheme being in preparation?

Major ELLIOT: It is premature to say that a scheme is in preparation, because the details, especially as regards the Scottish position, have not yet been worked out.

IRISH CATTLE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to state the number of cattle which have been landed at ports in Great Britain and which were shipped from ports in Northern Ireland during the month of June this year and last year?

Major ELLIOT: Separate particulars of the number of cattle landed at ports
in Great Britain from Northern Ireland are not compiled, but the total number of cattle exported from Ireland to Great Britain and the Isle of Man and embarked at ports in Northern Ireland in June, 1932, was 17,372 and in June, 1933, 19,317.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend take the view that this indicates that there was no serious smuggling of cattle from the Irish Free State through Northern Ireland for shipment to this country?

Major ELLIOT: I prefer not to dogmatise about that, as it concerns another department.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is there any increase in dead meat as well as live meat imports?

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 27.
(for Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that a milk organisation scheme is in course of preparation he will consider using Section 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, to control the importation of foreign milk products?

Major ELLIOT: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that imports of processed milks from foreign countries are already being reduced by voluntary agreement, a procedure which from many points of view is preferable to regulation by Order. The question of the steps to be taken in regard to imports of processed milks after the expiry of the present agreement at the end of August, and the position regarding imports of other milk products, are receiving close attention but I am not in a position to make a statement.

WHEAT ACREAGE

Captain HEILGERS: 28.
(for Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE) asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the acreage sown with wheat in the United Kingdom as revealed by the Returns of 4th June, 1933?

Major ELLIOT: The information desired is not yet available. The acreage for England and Wales will be published as usual early in August as soon as the preliminary statement of areas under crops, based on the returns of 4th June,
has been completed. Separate statements will be published for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

CROWN PROPERTY, REGENT STREET.

Captain HERBERT: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the capital values of Crown property in Regent Street have been seriously depreciated by the high ground rents fixed during the years 1922–27; that the rack rental cover for such ground rents is in general only 11 times or less; and whether, as such a low cover is not consonant with good estate management, he will, both in the interests of the State and the Crown tenants in Regent Street, reconsider the case of the Regent Street tenants for some concessions, in the light of the advice offered by the Permanent Commissioner of Crown Lands on 15th August last?

Major ELLIOT: The questions raised by my hon. and gallant Friend were fully considered following on a deputation which I received from the Regent Street Association on 26th January last, and subsequent correspondence. On 6th April I informed the association that the representations which they had put forward had been carefully examined and had received full consideration, but that the Commissioners of Crown Lands were not able to agree to any revision of the terms of the existing contracts relating to the letting of Crown premises in Regent Street. I can hold out no prospect of that decision being reconsidered.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the treatment of the tenants of Regent Street go to prove that a Government Department is always the harshest and cruellest of ground landlords?

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).

Mr. HALES: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, owing to many complaints by subscribers in obtaining connections on the dial telephones, a firm has recently been established for the purpose of assisting subscribers in obtaining such connections and have circularised the mercantile houses in
London calling attention to this; and will he consider reverting to the older type of telephone?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not aware that any firm has been established for the purpose of assisting subscribers in the manner suggested. The operating statistics show that the service given by automatic exchanges compares favourably with that given by manual exchanges, and I am not aware of any ground for staying the process of conversion to automatic exchanges which is, I believe, giving general satisfaction.

Mr. HALES: Will my right hon. Friend permit us, as far as this House is concerned, to remain in peaceful possession of the excellent service we have, and not allow the introduction of these dial contraptions which cause so much irritation?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that for once my hon. Friend has made a mistake. He said that a firm has been established for the purpose of putting in connections. As a matter of fact, that firm has been licensed to receive messages for telephone subscribers in their absence and to deliver such messages. Therefore, in his major premises my hon. Friend is wrong for once.

Mr. HALES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the circular in question said that where difficulty is found in getting connection they will do their best to get it?

Sir K. WOOD: Then perhaps my hon. Friend will patronise the firm.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what was the original cost of the Houses of Parliament; and what is the estimated cost of the refacing and repairing work now in progress?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The cost of erection of the Houses of Parliament was approximately £2,300,000; the estimated cost of the repair of stonework is £750,000.

Mr. WISE: Will my right hon. Friend consider, not repairing this House, but putting down a decent modern building in its place?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That would be infinitely more expensive than repairing, but admittedly this is a very expensive building to repair.

Mr. BURNETT: Does not the enormous expense suggest the use of a more durable stone such as Aberdeen granite for Government buildings?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

EDINBURGH.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: 35.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to an announcement by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, of which a copy has been sent to him, that the great majority of the town council are convinced that the suggested Calton site is the only feasible proposition for the proposed new Government buildings; and will he take steps to definitely ascertain if this is the opinion of the corporation of Edinburgh?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no reason to doubt that the Lord Provost has correctly voiced the opinion of the corporation. '

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Woks what has happened to the plans for the Scottish Government buildings prepared by the late Government; what was the total expenditure incurred in the preparation of the plans; why it has been decided to abandon those plans and to invite private architects to submit designs for the buildings; and what will be the cost involved in the payment of fees to the successful firm of architects?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The plans to which the hon. Member refers are still in my office, and they were abandoned because they did not commend themselves to the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland. It is not practicable to allocate the cost of office staff which was engaged on the preparation of these plans. It has been decided to entrust the work to an architect in private practice because the scheme is regarded as one of exceptional national importance; until the questions relating to the development of the site have been resolved I shall be unable to give an estimate of the fees that will be payable to the architect.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will a sketch plan of the proposed new buildings be made available to hon. Members before the House is asked to vote money for their erection

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will take that point into consideration when the time comes. I have given a public pledge that before the Government even consider the erection of the buldings they will have to be approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission in Scotland and the Edinburgh Corporation. By that time, I presume the designs and plans will be more or less public property, but, if it is then considered desirable to put something into the Tea Room for hon. Members, I will consider doing so.

WHITEHALL GARDENS, LONDON.

Miss CAZALET: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, with regard to the decision to appoint an architect in private practice to prepare plans and designs for the proposed Government offices in Whitehall Gardens, how that architect will be selected; and whether any plans and designs will be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission for their observations before the Government take any decision to proceed with the erection of such new buildings?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The architect will be selected by a committee consisting of the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the president of the Royal Academy, the chief architect of His Majesty's Office of Works, and myself as chairman; the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to introduce the Bill dealing with unemployment insurance before the House rises for the summer Recess?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

GREYHOUND BREEDING.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information as to the value of the greyhound breeding industry to the Irish Free State and the value of greyhounds exported to this country during 1932?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have no information as to the value of the greyhound breeding industry to the Irish Free State. As regards the second part of the question, as was explained by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 20th July, it is not possible to state the value of greyhounds imported from the Irish Free State into this country during 1932, since these animals are not separately classified in the accounts of imports.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, does he mean to tell the House that he does not know anything about greyhounds? I thought he was an authority.

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, no.

SIR HUGH LANE BEQUEST.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that recently a new municipal gallery of art was opened at Charlemont House, Dublin, by the Lord Mayor of that city, that it includes a room specially intended for the accommodation of the 39 paintings which the late Sir Hugh Lane in his will left to the National Gallery, London, but proposed subsequently in a signed but unwitnessed codicil to bequeath to Dublin, and that the provision of this gallery fulfils the desire expressed by Sir Hugh Lane; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable the trustees of the National Gallery, as an act of grace, to make Ai gift of these pictures to the Dublin municipal gallery of art?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware of the facts referred to in the first two parts of the question. As to the last part, the matter has recently been reviewed but no circumstances which have arisen since the announcement in the House of Commons on the 5th July, 1926, of the then
Government's acceptance of the conclusion of the Special Committee of Inquiry justify my holding out any hope of legislation in the sense suggested.

Sir M. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this would be an admirable opportunity for a gesture of good will towards Ireland?

TOTALISATORS (DOMINIONS).

Mr. GROVES: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs whether the totalisator is in operation in any of the Dominions?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have not complete official information, but I understand that the totalisator is in operation in all the Dominions except Newfoundland.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the totalisator is in use in any part of the Dominions with regard to greyhounds?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know, but I do not think it is good in either case.

NEWFOUNDLAND (WAR DEBT).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of men from Newfoundland who volunteered for the great War; the amount of money borrowed from this country by Newfoundland to pay these men and other war expenses; and if any reduction of that debt has been granted, in capital or interest, to Newfoundland as it has been to some European countries?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the total number of men from Newfoundland who served in all forces during the great War is estimated at 15,000. The total amount of advances made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to His Majesty's Government in Newfoundland for war purposes was £400,000. Following on the Hoover moratorium, Newfoundland was offered and accepted a suspension of interest payments in respect of these advances during the year 1st July, 1931, to 30th June, 1932, and this suspension has been continued since the Lausanne Conference of 1932.

Sir B. FALLE: Do I understand that nothing has been taken off the debt—that no reduction of the debt has been made —and that these people, who came to our assistance, have now, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, to feed the British baby?

Mr. THOMAS: No such deduction and nothing so mischievous can be allowed to go forth. Every obligation that we made to Newfoundland has been honourably observed.

Sir B. FALLE: My point was as to whether, in regard to the obligations of Newfoundland, we were calling upon them to pay to the last penny after having given up so much to other nations.

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

PRIVATE FLYING (THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the damage done from time to time by civil aircraft to crops and livestock in this country, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to oblige all such aircraft to be insured against third-party risks in the same way as motor vehicles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Noble Friend has decided to ask the committee on the control of private flying recently appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell to consider the advisability of requiring aircraft in this country to be insured against third-party risks. The question of compulsory third-party insurance is also under examination internationally.

Sir G. FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman able to state the number of countries in Europe in which the authorities insist at present on this third-party insurance?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not know, but the whole subject is going to be looked into by this committee to which I have referred.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. HALES: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the extensive smuggling from the Continent into
this country by the aid of aeroplanes of such goods as silks, drugs, cigars, perfumes, etc.; and whether he will take the necessary steps at an early date to prevent this evasion of the Customs duties?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have no reason to think that smuggling by means of aeroplanes is carried out to any considerable extent; but all necessary steps are taken, as required, with a view to the prevention of smuggling by this and other methods.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can furnish a statement with reference to the 8,269 applications for smallholdings and enlargements remaining to be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, showing the length of time that they have been outstanding by yearly periods?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I regret that it is impracticable without an examination of each individual application to give the information desired by my hon. Friend, but I should be willing to discuss the matter with him with a view to furnishing any information which is available.

RASPBERRY PICKERS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many berry pickers are employed harvesting the raspberries in Perthshire and other areas; what is the standard rate of wages; and if he will arrange with the Minister of Labour to investigate wages and conditions with a view to improvement?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no information as to the number of persons employed in picking raspberries in Perthshire and other areas, but I may be able to obtain an estimate in the course of a day or two. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that the standard rate of wages for this work is five-eighths of a penny per pound of fruit. Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour nor I has any statutory powers with regard to the wages
paid for berry picking, and I am not satisfied that the special investigation suggested in the last part would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the raspberry growers are now receiving so big a price that they turned down the raspberry marketing scheme, and will he have an investigation made to see what the wages are in that industry?

Sir G. COLLINS: The information supplied to me, as contained in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member opposite, was that the rate is five-eighths. of a penny per pound of fruit.

Mr. KIRKWOOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the district all around the berry-pickers is scandalised because of the terrible conditions under which the berry-pickers work, and live, and move, and have their being?

Sir G. COLLINS: Such information has not yet reached me.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has got that information, what action is he going to take?

Sir G. COLLINS: A matter of local conditions is, as my hon. Friend knows, a matter for the local authorities where these people live.

HOUSING, IRVINE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many insanitary houses there are in Irvine; what is the officially estimated shortage of houses in the burgh; and, seeing that the Department of Health have ordered the town council to proceed with the building of 200 houses under the 1930 Act, what action will be taken by the Department of Health to compel this town council to fulfil its obligations with regard to re-housing?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Following upon the passing of the Act of 1930, the Town Council of Irvine estimated that the total number of houses needed, including houses required to replace houses unfit for human habitation, was 400. Since then the local authority have completed 188 houses and, as a result of the local inquiry which was held by order of the Department of Health, have resolved
to proceed forthwith with the erection of 200 houses under the Act of 1930. A further statement regarding the housing position in the burgh will fall to be submitted by the town council at the end of the present year, and my right hon. Friend will then be in a position to judge what further action, if any, is required on the part of the Department of Health.

ROYAL NAVY (PENSION PAYMENTS).

Sir B. FALLE: 51.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider allowing such naval pensioners as may so wish the privilege of having their pensions paid into a bank instead of compelling payment through a post office, in view of the fact that no additional cost would be involved by the concession?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Mansell): As indicated in my reply of the 12th instant, additional cost would be involved by the adoption of a dual system for the payment of naval pensions. The extra expense would be in respect of the consequent increase of staff at the Admiralty.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (DOCKYARD EMPLOYES).

Sir B. FALLE: 52.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that after the age of 60 employment is difficult to secure and that proof of seeking work and having sought work over a series of years is also difficult; and if he does or will advise the established men of His Majesty's dockyards, who are not eligible for unemployment benefit, who are discharged for age at 60 immediately to become voluntary contributors in view of the pension which should await them at 65?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Any unemployed person, even if uninsured for unemployment benefit, can register for employment at the local Employment Exchange and have his health and pensions insurance contribution card franked for each week during which he is available for, but unable to obtain employment. I am not aware of any special difficulties which might hinder the persons whom my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind from follow-
ing this normal method of proving their inability to secure insurable work. As regards the second part of the question, an unemployed person who is unable to establish in this way his title to continue in insurance is, in the ordinary course, given timely information by his Approved Society of his title to continue his insurance on a voluntary basis and so safeguard his right to an old age pension at the age of 65.

Sir B. FALLE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is not a question of continuing; that these men have not subscribed at all?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not recognise the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will be good enough to send me the particulars of any such case, I shall he very happy to consider it.

Sir B. FALLE: I mean all cases of established men in the dockyards.

DISTRESSED AREAS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether when allocating the £500,000 to the distressed areas, he will take into account the number of displaced national health insurance contributors, owing to non-prolongation, and the consequential additional drain upon the Poor Law authorities in the distressed areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: As indicated in the reply given on the 18th July to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), the numbers of persons in the several areas who will cease to be insured under the National Health Insurance Acts at the end of the present year cannot be known for some time, but I have no reason to think that the introduction of this factor, if it were practicable, would have any material effect on the allocation of the grant.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is there any truth in the report that my right hon. Friend is intending to alter the system of allocation which he announced in the House some weeks ago?

Sir H. YOUNG: Absolutely no truth at all.

COAL-PRODUCED MOTOR SPIRIT.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 56 and 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) what technical improvements in the processes for the hydrogenation of coal have taken place since 29th June last;
(2) if he will cause a White Paper to be published with an explanation of the process of hydrogenation of bituminous coal, the improvements of methods which render this process now commercially possible, and the figures as to costs of production, &c., upon which the proposed action of His Majesty's Government is based ?

Mr. LAWSON: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines what reports he has received recently from Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, Billingham, as to the success of their experiments in respect to the production of oil from coal; and what assurances of future development he has received from this company?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Certain of the points raised will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) and Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). As regards the remainder, hon. Members are aware that it has been arranged to have a Debate on this matter to-morrow, and opportunity will then be taken to deal with the points raised.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss of revenue due to the proposed action, foreshadowed by the Prime Minister, to encourage the production of petrol by the hydrogenation of coal?

Mr. LAWSON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper giving the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the proposals recently made to the House in respect to the production of oil from coal; and whether he will give a list of the companies with which he has been negotiating preparatory to the recent announcement of policy?

Mr. HORE-BELSHA: It is not possible to make a, reliable estimate of any loss of revenue under the proposed guarantee, as this will depend on a number of uncertain factors, including the extent to which home-produced motor spirit dis-
places imported spirit, the quantity of spirit produced, the amount of preference actually in operation, and the length of the period over which the guarantee extends. As regards cost to the Exchequer, further considerations, such as the relief of the burden of unemployment have to be taken into account. As regards negotiations, the discussions, begun three years ago, with Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have been continued. This firm has been engaged in research into the hydrogenation process for many years, and the Government considered it essential that before deciding or any action they should be satisfied that their proposals would ensure the erection of a large scale commercial plant for the production of motor spirit. I wish, however, to emphasise that the guarantee is not limited to spirit produced by the hydrogenation process, but is accorded to spirit produced from coal, shale, peat or derivatives of these by any process.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Is the House to understand that the Government are to embark upon this course of action without having counted the cost?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly not.

Mr. LAWSON: Have the Government received recent satisfactory reports from Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I made a full statement, and there will be a Debate tomorrow.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Have the Treasury made any estimate of the direct cost to the Exchequer of the present rate of duties on the basis of the probable output of the plant now contemplated to be erected? From that, no doubt, unemployment benefit will have to be deducted, but has any estimate of the immediate cost been made

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I informed the House of the considerations which militated against giving any accurate estimate. If my right hon. Friend would like me to look further into the aspect of the question which he has raised, I will see what can be done in the matter.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps a further statement could be made in the Debate to-morrow?

Captain CROOKSHANK: How is it so many Members of tile Liberal party are anxious not to help the coal industry?

GREYHOUND RACECOURSES.

Mr. KNIGHT: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of greyhound racecourses which have been closed down in England since the totalisator was declared illegal upon greyhound racecourses?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): On the 10th December, 1932, there were 165 greyhound racecourses in England and Wales. Between that date and the 10th May, 1933 (the latest date for which information is available), 12 tracks were closed, while 43 new tracks were opened in England and Wales. There was thus between those dates a net increase of 31 tracks.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to bring in a Government Measure on greyhound racing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot give any indication.

Commander MARSDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether bookmakers are operating on the new tracks?

METROPOLITAN POLICE (REORGANISATION).

Mr COCKS: 62
asked the Home Secretary (1) how many officers of the Metropolitan Police Force will be affected by the new order for the retirement of superintendents at the age of 50 and chief inspectors at the age of 47: and what until now has been the retirement age of these ranks;
(2) whether the new order for the retirement of chief inspectors of the Metropolitan Police at the age of 47 applies also to divisional detective inspectors; and, if so, how many of these officers will be affected;
(3) how many inspectors or station sergeants of the Metropolitan Police Force will be debarred from promotion owing to the new order ordering the retirement of chief inspectors at the age of 47?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In connection with the reorganisation of the force, eight superintendents and five chief inspectors are being required to retire in six months' time, in the interests of the efficiency of the force. The normal age of compulsory retirement for these ranks is 60. No divisional detective inspectors are being required to retire. The action which is being taken does not debar any inspector or station sergeant from promotion, and will, in fact, result in giving a certain number of inspectors and sergeants accelerated promotion.

Mr. COCKS: Is it the intention not to promote anyone over 44 to the rank of superintendent, and will not that bar chief inspectors from promotion and does not the same apply at an earlier age to ordinary inspectors?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Promotion will depend on efficiency.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (RURAL DISTRICTS).

Sir G. FOX: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the square mileage of rural districts in this country which are now adequately supplied with available sources of electrical supply and whether there are any such districts in Oxfordshire?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am afraid I could not furnish statistics in the form for which my hon. Friend asks, which would necessarily depend upon what standard he has in mind for determining whether any particular district is or is not adequately supplied with available sources of electrical supply. He will, however, find a good deal of information on the general question which he raises on pages 17 to 41 of the Tenth Annual Report of the Electricity Commissioners.

Sir G. FOX: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the slow progress of extending facilities for electricity supply is causing inconvenience in certain parts of Oxfordshire?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware that it cannot be done as expeditiously as we should like.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS VI.

MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £136,079, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £309,104, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain grants in aid."—[Note.—£140,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,449, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."—[Note.£14,200 has been voted on account.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £37,939,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[Note.—£221,500,000 has been voted on account.]

3.48 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The presentation of the Post Office Estimates is generally distinguished by one particular feature. One occupying my position generally makes a preliminary apology in respect of the method of the presentation of Post Office affairs to the Committee. While it is true that the Post Office Vote ensures Parliamentary control, it cannot give and does not purport to give a true account of Post Office business and activity. It is to the commercial accounts of the Post Office that one must turn in order to get a real and proper presentment of the position of the business of my Department. Unfortunately, it is not, and has not been possible for some time, for these commercial accounts to be presented to the House of Commons until the end of the year. For that reason, I have issued a White Paper which gives a financial statement, which, while it is provisional and subject to adjustment, gives, I think, a better and more intelligent picture of the state of affairs of the Post Office.
The Committee will see from this statement, which I anticipate will, in the result, be found to be fairly accurate, that so far as the postal services are concerned there is a surplus this year of some £11,106,000, compared with £10,869,500 for 1931–32. As regards the telegraph service, there has been little change in the position. The deficit on that service was £809,574 the previous year, and for 1932-33 it is £876,000. On the telephone service there is a surplus of £562,000, compared with £571,848 the previous year. For all services combined we anticipate a surplus of £10,792,00, as compared with £10,631,794 for the previous year.
The business of the Post Office is, as my right hon. Friends know, something in the nature of a barometer from which can be read many of the conditions and prospects of the country to-day. Like many other countries, we have suffered for some time from the prevailing depression, but I think our accounts reveal the inherent stability and soundness of the country, and in many respects show signs of returning prosperity. The postal
receipts have a special significance. For many years postal revenue has shown an upward trend, but in October, 1930, the trend was reversed, and for a period of nearly two years—until August last—there appeared a small but an almost unvarying decline. I am glad to say that in September last the tide turned, and once again the postal revenue figures have been showing a consistent increase. The public telegraph service revenue has been falling very considerably for some years, but in the latter months of last year the rate of decline was much less, in the first five months of this year it was stationary, and in January and February this service showed an increase. The figures for the telephone service would have been much better but for the number of cessations, which were not surprising having regard to the times in which we are living. But the net increase in telephone stations in the quarter from January to March, 1933, was 17,825, which exceeds by nearly 3,000 the figure for the corresponding quarter of the previous year, and the interesting part of these figures is that this increase was largely due to the reduction in the number of cessations. I am also glad to say that for the first months of 1933 the number of telephone subscribers showed an increase of some 15 per cent. over the number for the corresponding period last year.
Another welcome sign of the times is the position of the Post Office Savings Bank. It has well over £300,000,000 standing to the credit of its 9,500,000 depositors, and to this must be added some £200,000,000 of Government securities held for Post Office depositors. One in every four of the population of Great Britain is making use of this bank and it is an interesting thing, when one considers whether the conditions of our people are improving or not, to note that there are 1,000,000 more "live "accounts to-day than there were in 1912, and that the average balance standing to the credit of each depositor is 50 per cent. more than it was 20 years ago. I think that is one of the best pieces of evidence not only of the strength of our country but the sagacity and common sense of our people.
The gross turnover of the Post Office is the tremendous sum of £760,000,000. The figures not only show the course of
Post Office business but provide indications of the industrial and social conditions of our times. More letters than ever are being written in the British Isles. Nearly 7,000,000,000 postage stamps were sold last year. Circulars are evidently proving of increasing importance to many business concerns. In London alone there were posted in 1932, in batches, nearly 348,000,000 circulars, and there was a single posting of 2,500,000. It is also a fact that it is not always the Post Office that makes mistakes. Every week in London 400,000 letters are posted in the wrong box. The parcel post, I am glad to say, is fairly steady. During the year some 152,000,000 parcels were carried by the Post Office, as against 158,000,000 in the previous year. People are using postal orders for a variety of purposes. Nearly 50,000,000 sixpenny and shilling postal orders were issued last year, out of a total of 210,000,000 of all denominations.

Mr. COVE: How many went to the "Daily Herald "?

Sir K. WOOD: Out of 36,000,000 telegrams handled last year, no fewer than 11,500,000 were dictated by senders over the telephone, which shows that the telegraph and telephone are being more and more used in conjunction. Naturally our Continental telephone traffic has been considerably affected by industrial depression, and I am sorry to say the Anglo Continental telephone traffic is about 25 per cent. less than it was before the autumn of 1931, but, on the other hand, the number of overseas calls handled at the London trunk exchange was last year about 1,200,000. Wireless is becoming more and more popular, and the number of broadcasting licences in force on the 30th June last was 5,598,078. The air mail is being increasingly used in this country. During the last five years the weight of letters carried by air has increased by nearly 300 per cent. and the Indian mail which was despatched on 12th December was the largest air mail ever despatched from this country.
I would like now to say a few words about a number of new services and improvements of certain services which have recently been effected recently. The inland sample post has been restored, with the object of further promoting the use of home-manufactured goods. Great Britain was practically the only important
country without such a post in its inland service, and it certainly was not helpful to British business that a sample could, for instance, be sent from Japan to London for a much less sum than a sample sent from one to another of our own cities. I am glad to say that the introduction of that service has already proved to be a considerable success and of value to many traders. The annual traffic is estimated to be already over 20,000,000 packets. There were many people who prophesied that things would not go well, but I am glad to say that the service is working smoothly, and there is no evidence of it being abused.
The business reply packet service, which enables a person who wishes to obtain a reply from a client to do so without putting the client to the cost of paying the postage, and without the stamps provided being used for other purposes, has proved of considerable value. Already some 6,000 licences have been issued, and applications for the use of this particular service are being received at the rate of 150 a week. I was very glad to see a statement from one of the London business houses the other day that they had made the experiment of mailing 450,000 address cards, half of which were printed reply cards upon which postage is repaid, and the other half requiring a halfpenny stamp. Of the replies received, the business reply cards exceeded the ordinary cards by more than 30 per cent., which is some testimony to the value of the new service. The night telegraph letter service has been improved and extended, and telephone subscribers are now able to dictate up to midnight a letter to almost every town which has a head post office at a specially reduced rate, and the message is taken down and delivered next morning by first post, or early by special messenger. Other improvements have been made in the express delivery service, and in facilities for the issue and payment of telegraph orders on Sundays.
Many improvements have also been made at the Savings Bank. A highly successful sixpenny stamp savings scheme has been introduced at the Savings Bank, and already some 800,000 books have been issued, designed not only for savings, but for wise spending. The new travellers warrants and cruising credits for Post Office depositors which give them further facilities on their holidays for obtaining
payments on their account, have already proved popular and useful. I think that the other distinguishing feature of the Savings Bank during the last 12 months has been that the Bank's facilities have now been extended to the Navy.
I would like to say a word on the question of reduction of charges. I have been constantly pressed, as all my predecessors have been, to restore the penny post, to reduce the cost of telephone charges, and to reduce the cost of telegraph charges, and I may frankly say that if I bad acceded to one-tenth of those requests, the Post Office would have been in Carey Street. I recognise, of course, the desirability of reducing charges whenever it is prudent and financially possible to do so, and we have made a number of minor reductions in the charges during the last two years. Special rates for Air Mail post cards have been introduced, a new scale for parcels sent by air has just been introduced, and the Air Mail fees to the Dutch East Indies have been reduced. We have reduced the charges for ship letter telegrams, and also for tourists' radio telegrams and the charges for private lines. So far as the telephone is concerned, there have been reduced charges for certain classes of private lines and for extension lines, and also for the hand microphone. I wish I could have done more, but I think that all those in this Committee who stand for business management of the Post Office will agree that I must have regard to the financial side, particularly of the telephone and telegraph accounts.
During the last 12 months—and I would specially like to call attention to this—there have been many technical and important scientific developments at the Post Office in which the Post Office engineers can legitimately claim to have taken a very prominent part. I was particularly gratified, and so was the whole Post Office, when that great man Marconi a few days ago paid a tribute to the British Post Office and its chief officials for all that they had done in helping to make radio an efficient medium of universal communication. He referred particularly to the fact that England had been the first country to construct shortwave beam stations for wireless telegraphic communication throughout the Empire.
One of the most interesting of recent developments has been the increas-
ing use of the same lines and cables for the dual use of telegraphy and telephony. The extensive trunk telephone service of the country is able to provide to-day, without any sacrifice of telephone facilities, multitudes of line channels capable of serving for telegraph purposes also, and, I think most interesting and far-reaching of all, has been the utilisation of very short radio waves of the order of five metres in length or less for short-distance communication. Across the Bristol Channel, between Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare, linked with the inland telephone system, a regular commercial service has been introduced for the first time on a wave length of 4.8 metres in one direction and 5.1 in the other. Experience suggests that this system is likely to have a wide field of application for communication, at any rate over short sea routes.
The Post Office can do, and I think is doing, a good -deal to help British trade and industry at the present time. Our requirements for supplies of all kinds are naturally very extensive, and have reached a value of about £8,000,000 a year. I am glad to say that the apparatus of foreign manufacture bought by the Post Office represents less than one-half per cent. of the total. Practically all the money expended on new telephone exchanges and their equipment, apart from imported raw materials such as copper, is spent in this country. I think I can also claim that the Post Office has been preparing for a trade revival rather than waiting for it, and has steadily followed a policy of expansion and modernisation. In regard to telephones, for instance, the annual construction programme in relation to telephone development has built up a large reserve of plant. To-day there is no waiting list, and with suitable distribution we are in a position to provide for some 700,000 additional telephones.
With regard to the provision of automatic exchanges, it is the policy of the Post Office to instal automatic exchanges when extensions are required, or the effective life of the manual exchange is exhausted, and we are about to accelerate the conversion to automatic working of a number of exchanges where the existing cost has proved abnormally high, and where the economies from automatic working fully compensate for the extra
capital cost of the automatic plant. With the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, three exchange orders will be immediately placed, during the present financial year, to the value of some £500,000 for the replacement of the City (London), Central (London) and the Midland (Birmingham) exchanges. I have also taken steps, in view of the circumstances of the time, to accelerate our Post Office building programme. Steady progress is being made with the erection of new Post Office buildings, with the reconstruction of a number upon modern lines and with the general scheme for improving the appearance and condition of post offices. Next year it is hoped that the enlargement of the sorting office at Mount Pleasant will be completed, and it will then be the largest sorting office in the world. Again with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, steps are being taken to accelerate certain postal building schemes, and, wherever practicable, an earlier start will be made on schemes already included in this year's programme, and a number of other schemes, which would normally fall into next year's programme, will be put in hand during the present financial year. Those measures are expected to result in additional expenditure estimated at £50,000 for this year, and £200,000 for next year. At any rate, I hope that in those two directions the Committee will support the acceleration of the Post Office programme.
I want to say a word about the telephone, because the largest number of questions addressed to me during the last few months has been devoted to that particular branch of the service, and therefore I think it is perhaps desirable that I should say a few words about the position of that service. Last year was the first year in the history of the telephone in which there was an actual decrease in the number of telephones throughout the world. In 1932 and last year there was a decrease of over 2,000,000 telephone stations throughout the world. There were large losses in America, Germany and other countries. So far as the position here is concerned, I am not unmindful for a moment that there is a great deal of leeway to make up. We are far too low down the list of the telephone countries of the world, but it is, I think,
some satisfaction that Great Britain increased its stations last year by 66,293, and, at any rate, we have just passed our immediate rival in that particular direction—Germany—for this country has now 4.63 telephones for each 100 of the population, as against 4.57 in Germany.
I am also glad to say that we are having a different type of subscriber in the people who are now taking the telephone. I do not like to describe it as a. lower class, but it is a different class from those who have hitherto subscribed to the telephone service, and that, I think, is one of the most hopeful signs in this country. Considerable attention has also been paid to the position in rural areas, where there is still a good deal to be done, but small rural automatic exchanges are now being rapidly erected at the rate of well over one a. day. While there were only nine of such exchanges four years ago, to-day there are 1,034. There have been great extensions in the telephone service itself. Twenty-one years ago when the State took over from the National Telephone Company, it was a national service; to-day it is an international service. London can rightly claim to be the switchboard of the world. There have been considerable improvements, for instance, in the extension of the "on-demand "trunk service, which enables one simply by lifting the receiver, at any rate in a great many cases, to be immediately put through to our great provincial and other centres.
I am glad to be able to announce this afternoon that it is hoped at the end of October to bring in a. limited scheme, as a first step towards the extension of demand working to the Anglo-Continental services, of on-demand working between London and certain cities on the Continent. On-demand working will be available, in the first place, from the -London telephone area, outside the busy hours of the day, to those Continental cities which are connected with London by trunk service, and to the neighbouring places which are within the no-delay area of those cities. That is, of course, a very important step, so far as the extension of the service is concerned. I ought at once freely to acknowledge that we owe in no small degree whatever success has been obtained with regard to the extension of many of our services during the last year or two to the publicity cam-
paigns of the Post Office, and I want to thank the Publicity Committee which was appointed and chosen by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). That committee has on it some distinguished men, and 1 want to thank them for the voluntary service which they have given during the last two years.
Last year saw the commencement of national advertising by the Post Office for the telephone service. So successful has it been, that advertising has now been extended to the Savings Bank, the air mail and the telegraph services. We have done a great deal of useful publicity through exhibitions, films and salesmanship, and various publicity efforts of that kind. The Post Office bad a stand at the Advertising Exhibition that has just been held. It is desirable and necessary in my judgment, to continue publicity efforts of this kind, both in bad times as well as in good.
I want to say a word or two on the report of Lord Bridgeman's Committee concerning the Post Office. The Government are indebted to the work of the Committee, which they regard as a very valuable contribution to Post Office administration and advance. Many hon. Members know that the report contained a number of main recommendations and that there were also a number of detailed suggestions, such as those relating to internal reorganisation, which the Committee advised should be examined and considered by the appropriate Post Office authority. Those recommendations were considered by the Government, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted to them a good deal of time and showed a considerable interest in them. In the result, the main recommendations, as I announced at the time, were approved by the Cabinet, and I am glad to say that progress has already been made in many directions and that a number of them have already been adopted and put into operation.
The new financial relationships between the Exchequer and the Post Office have recently been the subject of legislation. They give the Post Office some portion at least, it is hoped, of its additional and increasing earnings, and, for the first time in Post Office history, will give the Department an interest in its profits and an incentive and encouragement still
further to serve its millions of customers. A strong advisory council has been appointed which is already functioning well. It meets regularly and is being consulted on Post Office questions of policy. Members are themselves enabled to raise matters for discussion on the agenda. Further steps with the object of bringing the Post Office into closer eon-tact with the public in the Provinces have already been taken. I have had the opportunity of consultation with the President and others of the British Chambers of Commerce and we are now setting up or reconstituting certain provincial Post Office advisory committees to cover all Post Office activities where local difficulties may be discussed, with a view to a more prompt and satisfactory method of their disposal. The recommendations in relation to the Stationery Office have been adopted and put into operation. A start has been made in connection with the employment of women telephonists in the evening hours. Progress has also continued to be made by bringing about a still closer association of telegraph and telephone administration. There has been for some time now—it started in the time of the hon. Member for Limehouse—a systematic training of certain Post Office personnel. Already further decentralisation has been put into operation.
Important recommendations were made by the Bridgeman Committee in relation to the relaxation of certain Treasury controls. The committee pointed out that there were a number of references to the Treasury which might well be left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General, and that many of them were purely formal. It is obvious that the Post Office cannot be wholly independent, or the Postmaster-General be left with an uncontrolled power to disburse large sums of public money. The Post Office, as well as being a commercial concern, is a national institution and an important cog in the machinery of government. Its organisation on the clerical and administrative side has generally to conform to the structure and general regulations and conditions of the Civil Service. It has long been obvious that a great deal of labour and correspondence is occupied between the two Departments with more or less formal applications, and that certain inter-departmental arrangements are clearly out of date. I am able to
announce that the principle has been accepted that any change of Post Office policy involving financial implications should be submitted to the Treasury, with adequate information to enable financial criticism to be directed upon it. That is right and proper. It has also been agreed that, when that policy or change of policy is finally approved, the Post Office should be left a considerably larger measure of autonomy in carrying it out. In future, the Treasury will direct its attention more to the financial consequences of the policy prepared by the Post Office and of future programmes of expenditure, than to administrative details.
To take an illustration, which I will give this afternoon because although this may not be a matter of great general interest, it is of interest to those working at the Post Office. The Post Office will supply to the Treasury, with the annual programme of expenditure, particulars of such matters as buildings and capital works. This programme will be discussed departmentally, and once it has been approved, the Treasury will normally be satisfied with a detailed examination of only such of the individual works as involve large capital commitments. I could tell tales, and could add chapters to the book of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), on this side of the matter, but as long as these principles are freely adopted by the two Departments, as I believe they will be, it will be a useful step forward. No doubt when experience has been gained of the practical working of the new system, other points will emerge to which the process of delegation can safely be extended. I thing I have said sufficient on these matters this afternoon, but I will privately give to any hon. Member who is interested in the subject more particulars of the important progress that has been made in this connection.
I have devoted some time to the examination of the important suggestions of the Bridgeman Committee in relation to internal reorganisation and decentralisation. The committee strongly emphasised this matter in their report. I have received various deputations, who have put various views before me, and all of those views will receive consideration. I regard this matter as one of considerable importance in bringing the Post Office into line with modern business and commercial con-
ditions. When the matter is in final shape—the Committee will appreciate that all these things take a great deal of time —I shall put them before the Post Office Board which is to be constituted, and other bodies, so far as their particular interests are concerned. I hope that the Committee will recognise that in the comparatively short time since the report was considered and approved by the Cabinet, considerable progress bas been made. There is no intention of pigeon-holing any portion of the report.
I do not want to trespass on the time of the Committee this afternoon, particularly as we have a comparatively short time for the discussion of the Vote. I recognise that we have been able to show some progress in Post Office affairs during the last year or two, but that there is still much to be done. Such progress and improvement as has been effected during the year would have been difficult, and could only have been fully accomplished by good will and co-operation within the Post Office itself. I want to express my indebtedness to my predecessors in office—to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse, who was particularly interested in telephone development during the short time he was there, to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) who was Assistant Postmaster-General and whom I was very sorry to lose, and to the present Assistant Postmaster-General, who has thrown himself whole-heartedly and devotedly into the interests of. the Department. I thank my noble Friend the Member for Aldershot for many of the suggestions which he has made. It is a curious feature of the Post Office that ex-Postmasters-General have felt compelled to write a book and reveal their souls in a much more candid fashion than when they occupied that position. Perhaps when my time comes I may be able to write a book about it—if the censor will allow me.
I would like to speak of the staff of the Post Office. The public estimation of this great Department depends in no small degree upon their work and assiduity, and due credit has not always been given to their faithful and efficient service. Criticisms there should rightly be. Mistakes are made and blunders occur. Many of our services require cooperation between the public and the Post Office, and the faults are not always
on one side. A particularly fine effort on the part of the staff of the Savings Bank was made in connection with the Conversion Loan. I am glad to say, in order to show that there is initiative and enterprise in the Post Office, that we have received over 8,000 ideas for the improvement of the service in the last 12 months from the manipulative staff. A voluntary effort on the part of the employé;s of the Post Office, apart from the efforts of the regular canvassing staff, secured to the telephone department during the last 18 months orders for 7,315 exchange lines and extensions, and 25,655 orders for minor apparatus. During the blizzard, in February, which caused such widespread damage to Post Office plant, the officers concerned, of all ranks, displayed remarkable energy and initiative, sparing no effort to make good the damage and maintain and restore the public service. In a number of bandit raids and attacks on post offices, men and women in charge have shown considerable bravery and courage.
I only want to say this in conclusion. The Post Office is a monopoly. It has its advantages and its defects. But, for mistakes and omissions and failures, it is right that the Postmaster-General of the day should be blamed. I gladly testify that during my term of office I have found much good work, loyalty, and keenness in the Post Office. Speaking for myself, I recognise that there could be nothing worse to-day than a complacent Postmaster-General, that the best advertisement in the world is a satisfied customer, and that, after all, the Post Office was made for man, and not man for the Post Office.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I should like to congratulate, as I am sure the whole Committee will congratulate, the Postmaster-General on his extremely interesting statement. It is a pity, to my mind, that we are to have but a rather limited time at our disposal for this discussion, but the Postmaster-General has obviously tried to rise to the occasion, because he took us through a mass of facts with the speed of an air mail, and it was not always easy to follow him. At all events, however, throughout his course he was not flying through any clouds, and there seemed to be fair
weather all the way. I should like, in passing, to thank him for his kind remarks with regard to his predecessors, including myself. Everyone who goes to the Post Office becomes interested, and tries to add his contribution to the good of the service, and, from the general review which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I think that all those who have been at the Post Office will be pleased with the progress that has been made in so many respects.
It is extremely satisfactory that the postal business has kept up so well in this period of depression. Taking, for instance, the telephones, and looking at what is happening in other countries, it cannot be said that it is simply because we were behind as compared with other countries that we have managed to increase our business while that of others has fallen off. It has been due to very hard work on the part of the Post Office staff, and by that I mean, not only the sales staff, but the technical staff And the work of the Advertising Committee. It is extraordinarily creditable that that work was kept up, because it is well known that during these past few years numbers of people have been obliged to give up their telephones, while many more have been tempted to do so, And it has only been by hard work that they have been induced to continue. I should like also to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on some of the new services that have been instituted, like the inland sample post and the business reply service. Many of these business reply postcards are now sent to Members of Parliament, and one is not faced, as one used to be, with the alternative of putting them into the waste-paper basket if they had no stamp on them, or wondering whether one should write or steal the stamp if they had one. That service has justified itself, as has also the night telegraph letter service.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the Postmaster-General with regard to the acceleration of the building programme—in fact, the Post Office's public works. I am glad to see that there is no Runcimanism in his policy. I do not want to touch upon the tender questions which will come up later in the week, but, whatever opinions there may be in the Government, we recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is on the side
of the angels in this matter of public works. I should have liked a little more information with regard to the new type of subscriber. One always recognises that, among the large population who have no telephone in this country, there are many people to whom a telephone is not of a very great amount of use, and I should like to know what classes of the population are now coming in on the telephone, and also in what areas. I should also like to know whether the new rural telephone exchanges are filling up with subscribers. It has been the policy of the Post Office to yield to the clamours of many back-bench Members of Parliament who have urged that telephone exchanges should be put up all over the countryside. In some cases the people of the locality have played up, but in others they have not, and, as everybody knows, unless you get a fairly full number of subscribers, those exchanges involve a loss. I should like to know whether the calling rate has gone up in the rural exchanges, because there are still numbers of people in this country who think that, if they give one call a week, they are thoroughly sustaining their local telephone exchange. I was interested to hear about the extension of the "On Demand" system.
I do not want to take up much of the time of the Committee, because our time is short, but there are one or two points that I wish to raise. I recognise that there has not been much time, since the Bridgeman Committee reported, to put their main proposals into force, but the right hon. Gentleman has scored a success in getting a change in the financial relationship. I should like to know whether he is proposing to set up the Functional Committee in the Post Office in at all the near future. I think that very much depends upon that, and I was a little frightened at one word that the right hon. Gentleman used, when he said it was necessary that the Post Office should continue with the structure of the Civil Service. I do not think it does need the structure of the Civil Service. Perhaps, however, he did not really mean that. I think that perhaps he only meant that it had to be in some degree subject to the Treasury. I certainly think that in the case of the Post Office we have to get away to a large extent from the structure of the Civil Service. That is one big change. In the second place, I
should like to ask what progress will be made in getting closer co-ordination between the headquarters staff and the staff in the provinces. The recommendations were made so that the Secretariat should not be a class apart, but should have practical service, and I should like to know whether any beginnings have been made in that direction.
There are two special points with which I want to deal. One is with regard to the question of Post Office pay. I recognise that the Postmaster-General is in the same position as any other Postmaster-General, that is to say, that he has to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I think that, looking at the Financial Statement, one must recognise that, in the difficult financial conditions, the Post Office has manfully played its part in assisting the finances of the country. There are, however, considerations which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account when he is dealing with the staff. In the first place, there is the question of the lower-paid men. I am well aware of the difficulties in that regard; everyone who has been at the Post Office knows them; but I think there is a case for raising the standard of a number of the lower-paid men. I am not going to elaborate that point, because that will be done by others.
The second point that I want specially to make is with regard to the part-time men. I know that that has always been a very difficult subject, but it has become a much more burning one owing to the increased unemployment. The old theory was that people could be employed part-time on Post Office work, and that they could manage to get some sort of other employment to bring them up to a full wage. That may have happened in some places and at some time before the War, but I believe that at the present time it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to get part-time work, and, although the Post Office make inquiries, when they are taking on a man, as to whether he is going to get other part-time work, I am quite sure that a, very large number of men who are employed part-time are really trying to live on their part-time pay. Everybody recognises what the result of that is. The result is that you have a number of people on a part-time basis with a part-time wage, and that the economic conditions are such that they
cannot get other remunerative employment, so that a large portion of the staff is sweated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a very close investigation into the whole question of part-time work. It may be that it would necessitate paying something more; it may be that a fairly complete reorganisation would be needed; but one is faced with that as a definite scandal—the position of the part-time men.
The only other point that I want to raise is with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation. We have there a State monopoly, and it seems to me to be a condition of a State monopoly that it should be absolutely fair. I have had a number of communications with regard to the question of listening-in to foreign stations, but the point that I want to raise is that of political broadcasting. I am aware that we cannot, on these Estimates, go in great detail into the whole of the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation, but one can go into the general question of policy, and the Postmaster-General has here a definite responsibility. Under the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Postmaster-General has the right of veto. I do not know whether he has ever used it yet, but it is a weapon in his hands. I think he should ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not made an instrument of Government party policy. I do not put this matter forward especially from one party point of view; I desire that across the wireless there should come views of every kind. On the last occasion on which we discussed this matter in the House, many speeches were made to that effect, but there seems to be a general tendency on the part of the British Broadcasting Corporation to regard what the Government says as right, and also a tendency, which is still more strange, to regard this Government as a National Government. Of course, the British Broadcasting Corporation must be up-to-date, and I think that no one regards the Government as a National Government to-day. After all, they have shed the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and his colleagues—at least they have shed them across the Gangway—they have thoroughly absorbed the Prime Minister and his colleagues and they are a Conservative Government.
But there are oppositions. There is the official Opposition and there is on certain questions the opposition of Members like the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), and many of his colleagues on the question of India, and there is opposition on the question of tariffs. On all these questions the British Broadcasting Corporation should be very careful to make itself a forum for opinions of all kinds to be expressed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am bound to point out that the Postmaster-General, except under one section of the licence, has no responsibility whatever for the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and we cannot debate the action of the British Broadcasting Corporation on the Post Office Estimates.

Mr. ATTLEE: The specific point that I am taking up is the right of the Postmaster-General to forbid any particular broadcast, and the point that I am coming to is that I think there are some specific broadcasts that he should forbid, because the Postmaster-General is the Minister who is responsible in this House. When you get a speech made by a Minister of the Crown on certain occasions, for instance, the opening of the World Economic Conference, there can be no objection and one could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman interfering. But if, on the other hand, a Minister of the Crown is allowed to broadcast on a controversial subject and there is no right of reply to the Opposition, it is clearly the Postmaster-General's business to step in.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid now that the hon. Gentleman is attributing to the. Postmaster-General a power that he does not possess. He can stop individual broadcasting but he has no power to require that anyone shall make a reply.

Mr. ATTLEE: The fact that he has that power means that he can say, "I shall forbid this broadcast" and, when the British Broadcasting Corporation asks him for his reasons, he can say, "I forbid this broadcast because I consider that it is unfair to allow only one side of the question." We on this side think that the Postmaster-General should exercise that right. We have had considerable
discussion on the matter, and we only ask for exactly the same position as occurs in this House. The point is that, when any big statement is made, the Opposition always has the right to reply. If one does not get that, one is really in a very dangerous position. You are getting really into a Hitlerite position, in which you have the Government of the day claiming to use a great organ of opinion for the expression of its own opinions. It is as if you did what Hitler has done and got all the newspapers on one side. If you had one single newspaper trust, you would have to deal with it. If Lord Beaverbrook had that trust, I am sure the Government would deal with it, just as they would if it were in the hands of the proprietors of the "Daily Herald." But we claim that it is most dangerous that a vehicle of public opinion, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, should not be used with absolute impartiality.
Although the British Broadcasting Corporation has been put in a very specially privileged position, the House has retained, through the Postmaster-General, some right of interference, and if the British Broadcasting Corporation were to allow a broadcast which outraged the whole sense of the country I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would step in without waiting for the forces of law and order or the forces of morals to expostulate with them. One of the things we believe we stand for in this country is fair play, and we demand that the Postmaster-General should stand for fair play in political broadcasting and should not be afraid to use his power. I will not give instances of where this has been infringed, but it has been infringed constantly in the past few years and we claim the right of an Opposition to have the opposing point of view put fairly before the country.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I cannot refrain from associating myself with the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman has offered to the Postmaster-General on his very interesting statement. We congratulate him not only on the innovations and new services which he has announced but also upon the general and very satisfactory resilience of all the services that are comprised under his direction. In these days the application of science and
mechanical science in particular, to the processes of communication are so rapid that there are few processes connected with the telephone and telegraph which are not undergoing some modification, and in some cases revolution, and it is very important that the Postmaster-General should have an opportunity of keeping the House, and through Parliament the country, acquainted with these matters. Apart from that, the Post Office itself is the greatest trading concern in the country touching the people in many departments of their lives most closely and it is essential that the Postmaster-General should have this opportunity every year of giving an account of his stewardship. The hon. Gentleman opposite made some remark about a complacent Postmaster-General. I do not think anyone would accuse my right hon. Friend of being complacent. In fact I should like to congratulate him on the idefatigable way in which he is proceeding from one part of the country to another in order to break down the feeling that the Post Office is an aloof body which is not anxious to keep in the closest possible touch with those it seeks to serve.
I was glad to hear that so much progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee. That Committee's report was in many ways profoundly satisfactory, and not the least satisfactory part of it to me was the few sentences in which they expressed their great satisfaction at the general efficiency with which the Post Office was discharging the duties entrusted to it. It was to my mind a very complete and satisfactory answer to a great deal of criticism that has been made throughout the country about the services rendered by the Post Office. To hear some of the criticism that is made by the Post Office one might imagine that the public were ready to adopt with alacrity and enthusiasm any suggestion that might issue from the Postmaster-General. That is very far from being the case. If some suggestion is made, or some process proposed for the improvement of the mail service or something of that order, the moment it is mooted letters are written, petitions are presented, my right hon. Friend is requested to receive deputations, and does receive them. Only to-day an hon. Member complained about the alacrity
with which the automatic telephone is being introduced, which everyone except the hon. Member himself agrees is a great improvement and has led to a great diminution in the amount of complaints about the telephone service. The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the wages of the lower paid ranks in the Post Office, and said there was a case for something being done for them. Those who are acquainted with that case must know that it is one which cannot be regarded with anything but sympathy and I hope the time may not be distant when that consideration may take effective form.
The House will have heard with satisfaction that, in a time when the use of the telephone, generally speaking, has been decreasing, owing to world depression, we in this country have increased the number of telephones. In a period of slump that is no small achievement, and it may be said to be due very largely to the more up-to-date methods and the active canvassing and advertising and salesmanship which have been encouraged by my right hon. Friend. There is, perhaps, a tendency, through the great development that is taking place and the convenience of the telephone to everyone, for it to overshadow some other departments in which excellent work is being done. The savings bank is unique. If anyone wants to see the last word in up-to-date business management, he will find it in the Post Office Savings Bank. My only regret is that other Departments of the State are not equally up-to-date. If some other Departments were organised in the same way and by the same method in appropriate cases, we should have a very substantial reduction in some of the Estimates. I only wish the example of the savings bank could become contagious and spread to other Departments of State which are not nearly so up to date. I associate myself to the full with what has been said about the loyalty and efficiency of the staff. None of the results which have been obtained could have been obtained but for the loyalty and efficiency with which they carry out their duties.
I wish the public would make themselves better acquainted with the tasks that the Post Office is trying to carry out. I think that a visit, for example, to the Post Office to see the processes of sorting would impress them not only with the
efficiency and the way in which the work is carried out, but also with the necessity that they on their part should co-operate with regard to times of posting letters in such a way as to make the processes easier and simpler for those who are called upon to carry them out. Having heard the account of the Postmaster-General, the Committee may look forward to the future development of the Post Office. It is impossible perhaps to exaggerate the loyalty of the staff and the way in which they carry on their work. It gives all the more emphasis to the point raised by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) with regard to the remuneration of the lower-paid grades of the Post Office. It is a very remarkable thing—and I speak from some little experience of the matter—that out of the whole of that vast army of some 230,000 individuals serving in the Post Office in 1932 the actual percentage of those who were dismissed was only.28 from all causes; and for dishonesty the number was almost the vanishing figure of.17. That indeed is a remarkable record which, I think, could not be beaten in any other direction.
We can look forward in the circumstances, and in view of the developments foreshadowed to-day, to the Post Office continuing to discharge its functions with great satisfaction and with increasing service to the whole community. The handicaps which may have been placed upon the Post Office by Treasury restrictions and so forth are now being modified, but the same conditions govern the progress in the Post Office in this rapidly changing modern world as govern any other business on a large scale, and that is the attitude of mind of those in it towards the problems which they have to solve. Conditions are changing so rapidly to-day that what is necessary in any business which is in any sense competitive or dependent upon the changes of science and so forth is that there should be dissatisfaction of those carrying on different departments with what they are doing. When there is a spirit of complacency or satisfaction with work which is being done, the work is not going on satisfactorily, and in such circumstances the Post Office would not fulfil its function. As far as my observations went during the time that I had the privilege of being
in that office, there is no department in which there is satisfaction with the work which is being done. There is a proper amount of dissatisfaction, and from that there arises the desire to improve upon existing methods.
It might not be untrue to say to-day that, if you take a business which has been in existence for a long time, any process which has been carried on for 20 years, although it may be right in principle, must essentially be wrong in method; and that any process which has been carried on five or 10 years certainly must be regarded with grave suspicion and may probably be found to be somewhat out-of-date. The essential thing is that the Post Office should have leadership at the top, which I believe they have, and a spirit of dissatisfaction with their own working, so that they may seek to improve it and deserve the co-operation of the public outside.

5.5 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) in congratulating the Postmaster-General most heartily upon his speech and upon the very remarkable record of work which he has to show since he assumed office. I assure him that it is a very great satisfaction to one who has agitated for four years inside the Post Office for some of those reforms, and has agitated outside the Post Office for another two years, during part of which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was Postmaster-General, to find that my right hon. Friend is now able to carry them into effect, although the circumstances of the times are certainly more difficult than they were in the time of his predecessor. I only fear that before a very long time has elapsed there may be imminent danger, of my right hon. Friend being promoted to some department which is regarded as being more important politically, though from the point of view of the country I do not think that there are many departments which are more important than the Post Office. I hope that he will be spared to the Post Office long enough to carry through the great programme of reform upon which he has embarked.
I was particularly glad to hear him say that there is to be no pigeon-holing of the Bridgeman Report. The Bridge-man Report, although it did not give by
any means everything for which some of the critics of the Post Office asked, yet recommended a very far-reaching and important series of reforms. From what the Postmaster-General has told us this afternoon, it is clear that he has taken those recommendations seriatim in the order which he thinks most appropriate, and is proceeding to carry them out one after the other. I can assure him that the critics of the Post Office in the past and those who welcomed the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee have every reason to have confidence when he tells us that those recommendations are not to be pigeon-holed and that he intends to carry out all of them before his tenure of office ends. I was very glad to hear him say that the sample post had been such a success and that it had not been abused, because I remember being told repeatedly that it had to be abolished because the abuse was so great. The only conclusion which I can draw from the statement of the Postmaster-General is that we must be a great deal more honest than our fathers, and that, after all, is a very comforting reflection.
I should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done in accelerating the automatic programme, and to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the efficiency of the automatic working, particularly in London. I think that anybody who has been on an automatic exchange must realise what an enormous improvement it makes in the reliability of the service. I am very glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman is pushing that development as fast as he can. I was greatly interested in what he told us about the relative place of Great Britain in telephone density at the present moment. It appears that under his leadership we have gone up one place in the class, and he explained this afternoon, in tones of commendable pride, that we now have more telephones than Germany per hundred persons. That is a very revealing statement when you realise that Germany, 14 years ago, was practically bankrupt, defeated, and exhausted after the greatest struggle in history, and that ever since then, practically speaking, Germany has been going from one financial crisis to another. She is once more on the verge of bankruptcy, and now for the first time this great commercial country of Great Britain has at last got as many and just more tele-
phones than Germany. That seems to be eloquent tribute to the place of inferiority which we have been occupying in the past in regard to telephone development. I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend feels as bitterly about it as many other Members of this Committee.
The hon. Member for Limehouse is entitled to claim a large amount of credit for the fact that there has been no diminution in the number of telephones in this country during the slump, because it was he who inaugurated the advertising campaign. That campaign has been pushed forward by the present Postmaster-General, and undoubtedly it has been an excellent move and one which ought to have been adopted about 10 years ago. But when all just allowance has been made for that, the reason why there has not been a diminution in the number of telephones in this country, compared with what there has been in other countries, is due to the fact that we were nowhere near saturation point in telephone development as were other countries.
That leads me to say something upon a matter about which I have agitated a good deal in the past and about which I was sorry to note the Postmaster-General was silent this afternoon. He spoke of the reduction of telephone charges and of the improvements he had been able to effect in that direction, but he did not tell us a word about telephone costs—of the costs of telephone construction and of telephone maintenance. I hope that when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies he will be able to give the Committee some assurance and some figures showing how the costs of telephone construction and maintenance have been falling, if they have been falling, as I hope they have, during the past two or three years. I was appalled at the cost of telephone construction and maintenance when I was at the Post Office. I published a number of figures which caused a great deal of sensation, and they were never contradicted either in this House by the hon. Member for Limehouse or Mr. Lees-Smith or by the present Postmaster-General, or by the Bridgeman Committee, but I have been subsequently assured that they are now obsolete, and I am delighted to hear it.
I should now like to know the average cost of putting up a telephone line in
a rural area and in an urban area—a light line or a heavy line? If the right hon. Gentleman can give us some figures in that respect and tell us how they compare with the costs in foreign countries, I think that the Committee would be greatly interested, remembering that when the State took over the telephones from the National Telephone Company the capital cost per instrument, if I remember rightly, was something like £23. In the case of the Post Office, a year or two ago it was £76 per instrument. It is true that in the interval the service has been enormously improved, and it is not a fair comparison to take those two figures and say that you are comparing like with like, but even when you have made allowance there was this tremendous difference in the actual cost per instrument, and I should like to know what has been done to reduce it. When I urge the reduction of costs I do not mean reduction of wages. The cast of constructing telephones in America, for instance, was in many cases much less than here, although the wage earners were receiving much higher wages. That was because the output per man was very much greater.
I was very much interested to hear what the Postmaster-General said about the new ideas that have been submitted to the Awards Committee. He said that 8,000 new ideas were submitted last year. I take it that every one of them came from postal servants. He did not tell us what rewards were given to these postal servants. In my view, in the past the amount of remuneration or reward was often wholly inadequate. Many a postal servant has made suggestions and inventions which have saved the Post Office hundreds and in some cases thousands of pounds, and they have been given the small pittance of £5 or £10 for it. I hope my right hon. Friend will do something to give the inventor, who is not allowed to patent his idea, a really good reward for a really valuable idea.
There is one more question that I should like to ask, and that is in regard to what the Postmaster-General said as to the use of some of the same wires for telephone and telegraph purposes. Can be say whether the developments of science have been such that he will be able to eleminate some of the old over-
head wires, which are exceedingly unsightly in the country and which are apt to blow down whenever there is a bad blizzard, thereby dislocating the telegraph service of the country If it is the case, as I understood him to say, that our great underground trunk cables can now be used simultaneously for telegraphic and telephonic purposes to a much greater extent than was possible a few years ago, I should like to know whether it will be possible to eliminate some of the overhead lines, which are fast becoming obsolete and should be removed wherever possible.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse with great interest and I think I agreed with nearly everything he said, except when he compared the Postmaster-General to Hitler. I do not think, as yet, that description is entirely warranted. I could not help being interested in noticing a notable omission from the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse. I take it from the silence of his speech as the official spokesman of the Labour party that he has no sympathy with the campaign put forward by the Union of Post Office Workers for so-called workers' control of the Post Office. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact, but anyone who has been following Post Office matters carefully during the last few months must be aware of it, that the Union of Post Office Workers, the greatest and most important trade union of postal servants, has been conducting a vigorous campaign in favour of so-called workers' control of the Post Office, that is to say, as I understand it, that on the directing board recommended by the Bridgeman Committee there should be an equal number of representatives of the staff, with an equal number of representatives of the State or the Government, with the Postmaster-General in the centre, possessing a casting vote.
I do not envy the position of the Postmaster-General in such a position as that. I think he would find his time taken up in settling a number of disputes, which would occupy most of the proceedings. The important point to which I would draw the attention of the Committee is the fact that this policy apparently finds no sympathy from the hon. Member for Limehouse, who is the official spokesman of the Opposition on Post Office matters,
because he did not make any allusion to it in his speech.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Noble Lord explain what is the policy to which he referred I did not hear it.

Viscount WOLMER: I was referring to the campaign which the Union of Post Office Workers have been bringing forward in favour of workers' control of the Post Office, a system by which, as I understand their proposals, the directing board to be set up under the Bridgeman Committee's recommendation was to be composed half of members of the staff and half of representatives of the State or the Government. I should explain to the Committee that those proposals are moderate in the eyes of some postal workers, who desire the entire board to be composed of postal servants. I gather that the hon. Member for Limehouse has not much sympathy with those proposals, because he did not allude to them in his speech.
I should like to say to my friends of the Union of Post Office Workers—I hope that I still have some friends in that union—that so long as the Post Office remains a Government Department any such idea is absolutely impossible. I have always been a supporter of the co-partner-ship movement. I have always admired those great public utility undertakings, like the gas companies, who have been able to carry out co-partnership to a very high degree, but I am perfectly certain that no such system could be fitted into our Civil Service and that no such system could be fitted into the relationship of Government employés and the State. The postal servants must remember that so long as they are employés of the State they are necessarily bound down to the wage level of the State. For instance, I represent a constituency largely of agricultural labourers. Those agricultural labourers are, in a sense, the employers of the postal servants, and it is not fair and it is not right that postal servants—who are no more skilled than agricultural labourers, because agricultural labourers are about the most skilful artisans in the country—should be paid a rate of wages totally different from the ordinary wage level of the country. Therefore, I think the Postmaster-General has been perfectly justified in resisting the wage claim that has been put forward by the union. The fact that he has a profit of £10,000,000
is not by itself proof that the postal servants are underpaid. It is only proof that our postal charges are too high and that in fact the Post Office is at the present moment being used as a vehicle of taxation, which I do not complain about in these times.
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to limit the system to the extent that he has limited it and that in future a certain proportion of the profits that he makes in his Service are to be given over to the development of the Service. I will conclude by saying that I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee as and when he finds it possible. I congratulate him heartily on the reforms he has already made and I hope that when he addresses the Committee next, year he will be able to give it as good a report of the reforms and the improvements carried out as he has been able to give on this occasion.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers in expressing the deep interest with which we listened to the Postmaster-General giving an account of the work of the Post Office during the past 12 months. Of all the Ministerial speeches to which I have listened the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the most optimistic. He gave us an able review of important matters in connection with a very important Department of the State, a Department which touches the life of the community very closely and for which we have a deep regard. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the plea made on behalf of the men and women who carry out this most important service. The history of the past 12 months in the Post Office shows clearly that in this State Department there are splendid servants, both inside and outside, who are doing most important work. Here we have a position which is not often applied when we are talking about employés. Usually we are told when the conditions of labour and wages are discussed that to talk on such matters is uneconomical, but in this case we are told that the Department has managed to make a surplus of nearly £11,000,000. A large amount of that surplus has been made out of the sacrifice of the men arid women employed in the Post Office service.
No one who knows the wages paid not only to the auxiliary but to the permanent staff as well will defend them, and I entirely disagree with the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he suggests that the employés should have no voice on the board of control. Who has more right to have a voice on the board of control than the men and women who give their life's blood to the work of this service, who carry out their legitimate duties day by day and very rarely fail us? The official figures issued as to the wages paid to thousands of men and women in the postal service is a scandal, especially in view of the fact that nearly £11,000,000 profit has been made during last year, some of which ought to be used to improve the wages and conditions of those who carry on the service. The Noble Lord, not for the first time, compared wages and conditions with those of the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer is wretchedly paid, and always has been, and we strongly object that his wages should govern the wages and conditions of all industries.

Viscount WOLMER: My point was that the agricultural labourer, like all other taxpayers, is an employé of the civil service. It is not a question of comparing his wages with other industries but a question of comparing his wages with those of civil servants.

Mr. PRICE: Even in face of the fact, which I will not attempt to deny, that the agricultural worker in an indirect way is called upon to pay more than his share in taxation, I maintain that here you have a State organisation, a Department of State, which is run as a State service, and making a huge profit; and I say that it is totally unfair to endeavour to base the economic conditions of men and women in the postal service on the lowest paid wages in the country, the agricultural labourer. And it is true to say that people of the same political views as the Noble Lord have been largely responsible for the terrible conditions which the agricultural labourer has had to face. We are living now in a new era and are entitled to suggest that postal workers should be better paid.
The Postmaster-General has eulogised the Post Office service, he has told us of its enormous work, and that it has made a profit of nearly £11,000,000. Therefore,
I want to appeal to him to give postal servants some voice on the Board of Control as to their conditions, and also to take into consideration the shocking conditions which apply to thousands of men and women who are carrying out this service on behalf of the State. I am satisfied that the community who make their contributions towards this service in buying their modest three half penny stamps or their half penny stamps, and the thousands of people in business, would not begrudge postal employés getting reasonable wages and decent conditions. The Postmaster-General was complimented by the Noble Lord for refusing the application of postal employés Is he justified in that refusal? Can the Noble Lord, knowing the facts of the ease, defend the wages and conditions of the service? We ask the Postmaster-General not to look back to the stone age but to look forward, to give postal employés representation on the Board of Control and revise the dastardly scales which at present control the livelihood of thousands of men and women and boys and girls, and thus give them a decent standard of living in 1933.

5.38 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) on a somewhat controversial subject but I think we can have confidence that the Postmaster-General will study these matters impartially and with an earnest desire to do what is right. That is all that this House and the country expects. We listened to the speech of the Postmaster-General with considerable interest. He and his Department are to be congratulated on having made such a large surplus, it speaks well for the whole organisation from one end to the other. But there is one distinctly depressing feature about it. It looks as though the Government have decided to use the Post Office as nothing but a revenue producing department for some time to come and if that is true we shall have to say goodbye to any reduction of rates which may be desirable at the first suitable opportunity.
There is one question which has been raised very strongly in recent years, I myself on behalf of business associations in this country have spoken on more than one occasion in urging some reduction in
the rates of postage, that we should return to the penny post as being highly desirable in business interests generally. The fact, however, is that in the present state of affairs in the economic world we Could not possibly expect the Government to do anything in the matter, although I would remind hon. Members that the reduction in the postage rates would have a very considerable effect on the commerce of the country. I hope, therefore, that this question will not be pushed into the limbo of forgetfulness. We should be able, however, to judge the possibilities of coming back to the old scales much better if the Postmaster-General would give us some particulars to what it would cost. There would, of course, be a considerable increase in postal traffic and there would naturally be some cost, but it would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some figures in regard to this.
I would like to express to the Post-master-General our appreciation in arranging the business reply envelopes, which will be of real value to the business world. Nor do I think we should overlook the possibilities of the inland sample parcel post. I think we should also consider adopting the green label system by which we could deal with the posting of dutiable articles. We lag behind foreign countries in this respect, and suffer from it a good deal. Therefore, I hope the Postmaster-General will consider these various matters. There is one other matter upon which I must say a word and also ask the Postmaster-General to say something about it. It has been suggested that the railway companies should more generally adopt the Continental system of time tables as to hours, and it has also been suggested that this is a matter which should be considered by the Post Office in connection with the time of collection and delivery of letters and telegrams. There is undoubtedly much confusion at the moment, which would be obviated by following the 24-hours clock rather than the 12-hour clock. I am not generally given to innovations of this kind, but at the same time I think it is generally agreed that we should not lag behind, and any innovation which will help to greater accuracy will be much appreciated. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General took same credit for the fact that the charge for hand micro-
phones will not be so great in the future. I hope there will be no charge at all, that would be the most satisfactory way of dealing with it.
Then there is the Madrid Telephone Conference to which I must refer, a very important conference on telephone matters, as to which I hope we shall have an explanation from my right hon. Friend. I am not speaking now only for business men in this country but for business men throughout the world, and I say that they owe a debt of gratitude to the representatives of His Majesty's Government. at that conference for having taken a stand in the interests of the business world. Unfortunately these conferences are mainly made up of people who belong to particular Departments, and their sole object in life is to get as much money into their departments as they can. They cannot see beyond the ends of their noses; they cannot see the broad principle that encouragement of the commercial world, by reduction of charges and not by increasing them, will pay the Post Office as well as the commercial world, not only directly but indirectly. What has happened is this: I was chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce delegation of business men that attended the Brussels Conference, when an effort was made to abolish the ten-letter code. We were successful in Brussels in retaining the ten-letter code as well as a five-letter code experimentally. At Madrid the majority decided against the ten-letter code, and so it has been knocked out, and now business men have all the disorder and expense that have resulted. I think recognition should be given of the work of the Post Office representatives. I trust that not only will the Postmaster-General accept that appreciation, but that he will pass it on to those who assisted him.
Another matter to which I want to refer is the work of the Advisory Committee at the Post Office. I hope that what has been suggested to the Postmaster-General by business men will be adopted, that he will have two representatives of the users on that body, and that they will be more frequently consulted than hitherto. Local postal committees are being developed in this country very satisfactorily. One was formed in Liverpool, when I was chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. It
started well, and is doing well to-day. In Manchester there is another, and there are others throughout the country. Too often, however, the Postmaster-General ignores the business men and creates his own committee, but I trust this will be corrected. If business men were taken into consultation more, many difficulties that arise could be settled immediately, others could be reported to headquarters and work could be accelerated in every direction. It would be of great value to the Post Office to bring the business world into consultation whenever possible. I would remind the present Postmaster-General that when the World Postal Conference was held in London in 1929 the British Government, through the then Postmaster-General, took the lead in shutting out the delegation of international business men who wished to help with experienced advice. I hope that the British Post Office has been fully converted in that matter and that we shall not see anything of that kind in future.
On all sides to-day we have had congratulations offered to the Postmaster-General. As we know, he is energetic as well as resourceful. In his work he has clearly shown the value of being prepared to step outside the beaten track and not to follow the old lines, but to adapt himself to the needs of the moment. When we see the progress that has been made. when we know the outlook of the heads of the Department and the faithful work done by those in the lower ranks, we can all be proud and satisfied that the Post Office is administered to-day in an excellent and business-like way.

5.50 p.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: On many previous occasions when we have discussed the Post Office, predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman have complained that criticism was flying about, but that when the Post Office achieved something very little was heard about it. The right hon. Gentleman said himself to-day that it was right the Postmaster-General should be blamed when blame was due, but he added that when he deserved it, it was right he should be praised. One of my objects in rising is to give my thanks to him for the excellent service which he and his Department rendered to the constituency that I represent. Not only that, but I think that what I say will be an in-
stance to him and to the Committee of the great dangers that exist, as the Noble Lord pointed out, from overhead wires in this country. The great blizzard of last February struck my constituency with particular force, but I doubt very much whether the Committee can have any idea of the devastation that was caused. It is almost incredible that so much damage could have been done in the course of a few hours. The result of the storm was that practically every line of importance was flattened, and most of the poles were smashed.
That is a serious matter to the ordinary subscriber, but when I add that in that district there is a very large fishing industry which depends almost entirely for the distribution of its products on having telephone and telegraph facilities, such a blizzard is almost a disaster. I am informed that an industry like that at Milford has to send something like 1,000 telegrams before 11 o'clock in the morning to ensure the proper distribution of its fish. The result of the February blizzard was that the whole district was isolated. I am glad to say that as soon as I saw the Postmaster-General he took very prompt action. He arranged that men should go down to bridge the gap with wireless. I believe it is the first time in the history of the Post Office that such a thing has been done. That arrangement worked very satisfactorily. But the best thing of all was that the Post Office decided to lay a buried cable. That cable, which covered a distance of 38 miles, was laid and working within six weeks of the night of the blizzard. I think the Committee will appreciate my desire to come here and state what happened. As a matter of fact the blizzard was a bit of a blessing, because one night of snow did what years of entreaty had failed to do. I want to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman, and through him all those of his staff who worked so extraordinarily well on behalf of my constituents.
I would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman also, as others have done, on his interesting and instructive speech today. He mentioned one or two things that rather worried me, particularly the facilities for distribution of circulars. I am informed that in one post 2,500,000 circulars were sent out in London. I am under the impression that most of them found their way to my address. But I
do want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the review which he gave of two years' work of his Department, and on the great progress that undoubtedly has been made under the right hon. Gentleman's command. Especially is that congratulation necessary when we realise the handicap under which any Postmaster-General has to work. After all the Postmaster-General has not a very free hand given him. Whatever he may want to do is governed to a large extent by Treasury control. However much a Postmaster-General may desire certain things, however much he may see their importance, he is not entirely free to carry out his plans. I was not pleased when I heard the right hon. Gentleman state twice to-day that "with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer," he was going to do something. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to have more freedom than that which is indicated in paragraph 68 of the Report of a Committee which inquired into the Post Office last year. That paragraph says:
On these figures, and on the basis of the foregoing adjustments, a fixed contribution of £11,500,000, plus 50 per cent. of any excess over that figure, would in our opinion be an appropriate sum.
I do not think that that recommendation is quite good enough, because the figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave us to-day, while it showed that we had risen from tenth place to ninth place among telephone users in the world, showed also that we are still a long way behind other countries, some of which are not nearly as commercial as this country. I have here only the figures for 1923. Assuming that they are approximately correct, even with the improvement that has taken place in Britain we have only 46 telephones per 1,000 of population, whereas the United States have 158. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland are all better supplied with telephones than we are.
In these days of intensive competition, a country which relies so largely on its export markets cannot afford to improve at so slow a rate as we have been doing in the last few years. The Post Office is a vital link in the industrial life of this country. The illustration of the blizzard which I gave just now shows what a terrible thing it is when something goes wrong even in one of the small branches
of the Post Office. The Post Office is increasingly important, not only in the industrial but in the agricultural life of the country. Parliament has recently been taking steps to make the marketing of agricultural produce more efficient. The greatest efficiency cannot be attained without a very generous use of telephones.
While I am delighted to hear that there has been a marked advance in the last few years, there is still a, lot of leeway to be made up. I find from my own experience that in very remote places the telephone is of vital importance, especially for the health of the inhabitants. I know the difficulty experienced in remote areas in my constituency in getting a doctor. A man may have to walk for an hour before he gets to a telephone, and then he has to get into communication with the doctor. The Minister of Health, I feel sure, will support me in the statement that a great deal can be done to improve the health of the nation if the rural telephone system is improved still further. I believe that extension of the telephone system should be governed not by what cash the Treasury can dole out to the Postmaster-General, but by what the Postmaster-General thinks he can do with the cash that is earned by his own Department. The Treasury regard the Post Office as a milch cow. Money that should be used for development is appropriated for other purposes altogether. In times of prosperity that is a mistake, but in times of adversity it is folly.
There are those in this House who believe that one way of meeting our difficulties, so far as unemployment is concerned, is by providing work, and one of the Departments best suited for providing work under the best circumstances is the Post Office. The Post Office can not only give employment to both skilled and unskilled men, but the work when done is definitely of value to the country, in that it is revenue-producing. Especially at this time of depression a good deal more latitude should be given to the Post Office to spend on capital works and so on. I am certain that what the right hon. Gentleman want., is a freer hand and we have had evidence during the short time he has been in office of what he would do if given facilities. Let us hope that he will use the great abilities which he possesses to persuade some of his colleagues to support him in his ideas. Even he may not succeed in that, but if
they are against him, perhaps the economic blizzard will help him just as the other blizzard to which I have referred, helped in the case of my constituency. If the economic blizzard persuades his colleagues that it would be a good thing to take the advance steps which have been suggested, and if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for taking those steps, he will have rendered a service to the country and added fresh laurels to those he has already gathered.

6.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have put down an Amendment for a reduction of £100 in the salary of my right hon. Friend, not from any personal animosity towards him, but because it is difficult to get an opportunity of speaking on these occasions without putting in a claim. My Amendment is there merely for ornament, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not construe it as any reflection upon his administration. There is one disadvantage in connection with the National Government, and it is that we find the right hon. Gentleman here as a Minister instead of as a critic of the Government. It is of course rather refreshing to note how our funny way of governing this country generally succeeds. It is largely based on the idea that one who constantly attacks the Government, eventually has to do the job himself and here we have an example of one who was once a keen and constant critic of the Government in power becoming a Minister and at once in some mysterious way becoming automatically a very efficient administrator.
Having made the right hon. Gentleman blush I now turn to a subject the mention of which always seems to cause the occupant of the Chair in this Assembly to "come all over a tremble," and that is the question of broadcasting. It seems to me that we are almost forming a new union of Speakers and ex-Speakers to protect the British Broadcasting Corporation. I hope we are not going as far as that. but we are to-day giving a grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation of £600.000. and I think we are entitled under this Vote to deal at any rate with the financial aspect of that body's affairs. Earlier in the year we had a Debate on broadcasting on a Motion on which we were allowed to roam over the whole field. On that occasion we had a series of
speeches from Front Bench Members, but a very sinister feature introduced on that occasion was that we had a Government Whip coming to the assistance of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Now I sincerely hope that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not in future going to be wrapped up with the Government of the day. I hope that the corporation will have to fight its battles by itself. The moment we get the British Broadcasting Corporation wrapped up with Government Whips, the position of the organisation will be divorced from what the people of this country meant it to be.
There is one point with regard to this £600,000. In the accounts given to us of the British Broadcasting Corporation there is nothing to show the income accruing from the paper which they run themselves. It will be remembered that there was a recommendation that the accounts of the corporation should be done by the Accountant-General. They are not done by the Accountant-General, but by a separate lot of accountants. This paper has a circulation of over 2,000,000 and a very big collection of advertisements, and it must contribute enormously towards the finances of the organisation, but the British public know nothing about it. It is good of you, Captain Crookshank, not to have interrupted me so far. I realise that I have been somewhere near the border line, but I am now about to speak about an aspect of broadcasting with which I think I am clearly allowed to deal on this occasion, and that is broadcasting apart from the British Broadcasting Corporation.
It is within the province of the Postmaster-General to grant licences for broadcasting. He has granted a licence to the British Broadcasting Corporation and within the ambit of the British Broadcasting Corporation, for some reason never explained to the House of Commons and never understood by the people of the country, we are not allowed to deal with a subject which interests the man-in-the-street perhaps more than anything else at the present time. That seems very absurd, but it is a Ruling and I bow to it. I can, however, speak freely about the possibility of another station. There is nothing to prevent that point being raised because the British Broadcasting Corporation has not a monopoly. There is nothing in its charter to say that it shall have a monopoly. When that
organisation was first instituted it may have been right that it should have been sponsored by the State and helped by the taxpayer, so that only the best and no advertisements should come through by its agency. But the position technically has changed. In passing, it is a curious thing that the only things which the British Broadcasting Corporation allows to be advertised are, first, their own paper, and, secondly, gramophone records. But there is already creeping in a practice of using foreign stations for advertising in this country.
I do not know if hon. Members listen-in, but if they do so they will hear on Sundays programmes paid for by English firms broadcast from abroad entirely for English consumption. This practice is becoming increasingly popular. The English market has been a good one for this kind of advertising—especially because our own British broadcasting programme on Sunday is not particularly good. It is our own fault. Our own programme attracts people so little that they automatically switch on to the foreign station—a state of affairs which ought not to have arisen but which has arisen. It cannot he right that this practice should continue to grow. An enormous sum is already going abroad for the use of foreign stations to advertise goods in this country. It is ludicrous that foreign stations should be taking English money for broadcasting in England and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to the installation of another station in this country by means of which that type of commercial advertising could be indulged in here. I do not see that it would interrupt or upset the good work which the British Broadcasting Corporation does but I say with all conviction that it is monstrous that we should have allowed a state of affairs to grow up under which English money for advertising English goods in England is going to foreign countries.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I feel specially honoured at having an opportunity of intervening in this Debate in view of my own family's past connection with the position which my right hon. Friend holds with such credit to-day. I would call the attention of the Committee specially to the fact that my right hon. Friend has to work in a very restricted orbit. Not only is he restricted by the Treasury—and I
am sure we are all delighted that he is to have a little more freedom in expending money on the expansion of the postal services—but, apart from that, many matters which are brought up outside this House as criticisms against the Post Office really belong to other Departments. For example, I recently asked a question with regard to the installation of a greater number of telephones in police houses throughout the country and I got a satisfactory reply but it was from the Home Office and the Home Office was of course the responsible Department in that case and not the Post Office. My right hon. Friend is not entirely master in his own house, although, from what we have heard we feel confident that in so far as he is master he will push on postal reforms to the best of his ability.
I regret personally that the Bridgeman Committee did not go a little further. No doubt I am something of a reactionary in the eyes of my hon. Friends on the other side of the Gangway but I would prefer the Post Office to "be taken out of politics and turned into some form of statutory authority or public utility company. However, we have to make the most of it as things are to-day and I hope, in that connection, that the Bridge-man Committee's suggestion of a really representative board, with the Postmaster-General as chairman, to deal with reorganisation of staff will be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. Comment is often made on the frequent changes in the office of Postmaster-General. We have had a succession of Postmasters-General and it is apparently difficult for any man to remain in the office long enough to carry out any comprehensive reform. If the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council were here I should humbly suggest a very easy way of granting my right hon. Friend the advancement in office, which he will obviously receive ere long, and at the same time meeting the criticism to which I have just referred. It would be to make the office of Postmaster-General one of Cabinet rank and to retain my right hon. Friend in that position. That of course is a matter over which a mere private Member has no jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) suggested that it would be a grand idea, if there was a decent surplus, say, between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000, to use a great part of it to increase wages
in the Post Office service. It was pointed out by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—who got into hot water for pointing it out—that a big surplus shows that the public are being charged too much. I know it is not the intention of the Postmaster-General or the Government to do so, but if they were to work deliberately for a big surplus by means of high charges and if the hon. Member's suggestion were followed, it would simply mean turning the money over to the Post Office workers at the expense of a great many other people including even agricultural labourers, who have very poor conditions of life and who have to pay more than was reasonable for their postal services under such an arrangement. Various criticisms are levelled at the Post Office outside the House of Commons but the criticisms that are made from time to time in regard to the delivery of letters are unfair. The Postmaster-General has referred to the fact that every week about 400,000 letters are posted in the wrong boxes, country letters going into the London box, and London letters into the country box. The public are very largely to blame if their letters are delayed.
Nor do I agree with those who suggest that in post offices the ordinary customer is treated with incivility. But there is certainly a lack of any kind of personal association between the ordinary Post Office assistant and the ordinary customer. It does not amount to incivility, but you do not get in the Post Office for instance the sort of "pushing" of new postal facilities by recommendations to customers such as you get in a private business. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There would he a row."] There might be a row but there would be more money in the Post Office and you would have more facilities and the existing facilities would be used to a larger extent. That would be a good thing for all concerned. That however is by the way. When we come to the question of telephones there is one matter which I would put before the right hon. Gentleman because I think it a genuine grievance. It is in regard to telephone party lines in rural districts. To-day in rural areas there is an arrangement with the Post Office by which a couple of farmers can have a party line between
them each paying his contribution. At present, if one man discontinues his connection for any reason, unless the Post Office immediately get another subscriber to take his place, either the remaining subscriber has to pay a great deal more for the telephone or else the whole thing is closed down, causing a loss of revenue, while at the same time several miles of wire and the installation are left idle. I hope these regulations will be taken into consideration.
There are two questions that I should like to ask, and the first is as to how far the right hon. Gentleman is progressing with his efforts to stimulate home-grown and Empire timber for telegraph posts. I understand that, generally speaking, the people who purchase Empire timber for telegraph purposes have rather confined their attention to hardwoods. Hardwoods are difficult to creosote, and if you cannot get creosoted wood, it is doubtful if it is suitable for the purpose. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the hardwood that you have in Canada and Newfoundland conifers, which are infinitely more suitable in many ways, because certain species of them resemble very closely the Scotch firs, which in this country are used as standard for telegraph poles. The Postmaster-General referred to the enormous increase in the air mail services, and I am sure that hon. Members of this House and people outside will be glad to hear of the further efforts that are going to be made to advertise the air mail postal services. In conclusion, I should like once again to express my own personal satisfaction that the Postmaster-General is taking into consideration very closely the Bridgeman Report; and beyond that I should like to express my confident hope that he will not lose his reforming zeal. Each year I shall look forward to still better returns and still better reports.

6.17 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I wish briefly to refer to one branch of the Post Office work, and I am encouraged to do so by a reference made to it by the Postmaster-General himself in the course of his opening of speech, to which we all listened with great interest, because it showed what very great development the Post Office has been making during the last year or two. That part of the work to which I wish particularly to refer is
the improvement in recent years of wireless telephony, and the desirability of making greater use of it in installing communication with the islands round our coasts. Of course, from the particular position of my own constituency, it is a matter that appeals to me very much, but it is not only in my own constituency; there are other parts all around our coasts where the commencement of such an installation might prove of immense benefit.
This is not a new matter. It has been under consideration for the last 10 years. I know that Ministers are apt to consider matters before giving them active consideration, and to give them active consideration before coming to action. The Postmaster-General has been giving this matter his active consideration. When it was first brought up, the matter of cost was very important, more important than it is to-day. Wireless telegraphy has now given place to wireless telephony, and the installation of wireless telephony, I understand, is very much less costly than the installation of wireless telegraphy would have been a few years ago, added to which, of course, the maintenance of it is very much less. But always this question of finance is brought up. Years ago there was the cost of the installation of the wireless telegraphy. It could be done if it was not for the matter of cost; and although the cost has gone down and the revenue of the Post Office has gone up very much, I am still given this answer, "The difficulty is the cost."
Well, the cost now is really very little indeed, and it seems to me a little wrong that our own people who happen to be living on an island should not get the advantages that are available to-day without application having to be made to other Departments outside the Post Office, without, in fact, the Postmaster-General going round to other Departments for subscriptions to get this work installed. It is not that I am not grateful to other Departments for giving us assistance in this matter, but I think a wider issue here is involved. I look upon the telephone service as a national service, and I am never quite able to agree with the Postmaster-General, though I agree with him in not wanting to see money used unprofitably, that a poor district should not get the advantages of a national service. It would be ridiculous to say to a poor and thinly populated county, "The collec-
tion of your letters and their distribution are so costly that you must pay 1d. a letter, whereas the rest of the people only pay l½d." On that same argument, it is only right that where people are living in these out-of-the-way parts they should not be handicapped because of the question of a small charge, but they should be brought into the general national system.
I should like the Postmaster-General to be good enough to give me an answer on that point, because it is a very wide issue that is involved. There is at the present moment a question of installing this wireless telephony, with a short wave system, with an island where, it would be immensely important. There is a small population of fishermen, who want to communicate with the markets, with people for obtaining ice, and with merchants. There is a lighthouse there, there is no doctor, and it is a most important station for signalling to the lifeboat when it goes out, so that there is every special reason in that particular place for making an experiment with this installation. I am sure that if the Postmaster-General was to make up his mind to make this as a first installation, he would find that the actual costs are less than the conservative estimate which has been put up, and I hope it would encourage him to go further and give the benefits of communication to these outlying islands, not only to this special island, but to many others, which should be brought within the ambit of a great national service.
In conclusion, I would like to add my testimony to the testimony of everyone who has already spoken for the able and progressive way in which the Postmaster-General is administering his Department, and I hope that he will be still more progressive on the particular line about which I have been addressing him.

6.23 p.m.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I have no intention of endeavouring to detract from the praise meted out to the Postmaster-General for the admirable way in which he has administered his Department. There is one aspect of the Department to which I wish to call attention, which was briefly referred to in his speech, and that is the air mail service. Here is a new branch of development, in regard to which I think the
right hon. Gentleman does not deserve the same praise as in regard to other departments under his control. Here we have an infant service, struggling hard to make its way, and not only is it obliged to pay its way, but the money derived as a profit from it is being devoted to subsidise other branches of the Post Office service. That, I consider to be very wrong indeed, particularly as the air mail service is not as other branches of his Department which are a monopoly, but is meeting the cold blast of the competition of the whole world.
Every day you read of contracts being taken away from Imperial Airways, from British services, and transferred to other Governments, and I consider that to be both unnecessary and wrong. Only the other day I read of a contract for an air mail service being taken from Imperial Airways by the Palestine Government and given to a Dutch air mail service, and almost the same day we had in this House a request from the Colonial Secretary for a guaranteed loan of £2,000,000 for the Palestine Government. Add to that the fact that the ground services in Palestine belong to a British company, which has been subsidised by the British Government. The reason for this transfer of contracts and the reason why other Governments are beating us in this sphere is because these Governments have guaranteed a minimum load to these companies, whereas the British Post Office will not do that, but will only give air mail loads whenever they have them. The carrying companies have to rely entirely upon whether or not there are mails to be carried, and when there is no mail to be carried, they have to make up for it in some other way. Recently I read the report of the chairman of Imperial Airways, who said, in regard to the air mail:
The air mail was the youngest baby of the postal administration. It was in dire need of nourishment, yet it was expected not only to earn its own living, but to pay for the privilege of being allowed to do so.
That is a fact, because last year the profits made from the air mail service, this very important infant service, were something like £13,000, a very small sum when you are considering the vast ramifications of the Post Office. At the same time, we have to consider what vast importance the air mail service is to the
British Empire, and if we are to hold our own in this branch of the Post Office service, it is necessary that the Postmaster-General should take a wider view and, if necessary, take risks in order to encourage the air mail.
I have only one or two suggestions to make in that connection, and one of them is that he should follow the example of other Governments and guarantee a minimum load to our air mail carrying services. Another suggestion that I have to offer is that the right hon. Gentleman should set up an air mail department of the Post Office. After listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, one realises that with the wide ramifications of the Department and the extraordinarily wide areas which he has to administer, it is quite impossible that he should devote the attention and time to this new branch of his Department which it requires, because every service in its infancy requires nourishment, time, and attention which older branches do not require. Therefore, I urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he should set up an air mail department under his administration, to concentrate entirely upon this branch of the service, in order that we can develop it and encourage it as it should be developed and encouraged.
There is only one more point that I should like to raise, and that is the question of materials. The Postmaster-General quite rightly said that his Department has concentrated upon the purchase of materials for his Department as far as possible from the Empire or British sources. On that, he is to be heartily congratulated. At the same time, there is one material which I still regret to say is imported from Russia more than anything else, and that is the material for telegraph and telephone poles. As another hon. Member has suggested, that is a material that could be supplied amply within the Empire. Although it may not be at the same cost to the Department, I am convinced that if the Canadian timber industry were encouraged to concentrate on telephone or telegraph poles, it would be able to supply in time a very improved material for the Department at a cost which could be considered reasonable, and it would give employment and scope for development of an important industry within the Empire.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that this Debate may be resumed after the discussion on the private Bill which is to come on at 7.30, and I rise now because I understand that the Assistant Post-master-General will reply to the Debate so far as it has gone at 7 o'clock. I should like to say a few words about wages and conditions. I should not do so but for the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). So far as I have heard the Debate, it has been roses, roses all the way, and we might have closed the discussion a long time ago except for the fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT will record a long series of congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. I will warn him, as I have been warned myself, that when all men speak well of you, you should take care, and watch your step. The right hon. Gentleman at the Post Office has apparently infused into the officials of his Department some of the vigour, energy and go that he devoted against the Labour Government. That is, of course, quite right and in the natural order of things. I do not see anything extraordinary in it, and I should have been disappointed, with my knowledge of him, if he had been anything different.
He has not, however, yet got over the Treasury. That is a stile against which many men much bigger than the right Gentleman have butted, but it has always proved impossible to surmount it. I shall think ever so much more of him next year if he can tell us that he has cast off the control of the Treasury in his Department. The Post Office should be managed by the Department, and its profits should first be used for giving a decent standard of life to the people who carry on the industry, and then used for the future development of the industry. To make a profit in order to lower taxation is entirely wrong. The Post Office ought to be run as a public service at the lowest possible rate to the public, consistent with a decent standard of life for the people who work in it. When we talk of nationalising services, we do not speak of them in the sense that we want to run them as profit-making institutions. We might as well leave it to capitalist society to do that. I wish to make it clear that we want the service organised as a service in the most efficient manner possible with
the best standard of employment and wages for the workers.
Many Members of the present Government, and I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not among them, have given at least lip service to the doctrine laid down by one of the Church Congresses, that the first charge on all industry should be the life and well-being of those who carry on the industry. I set that against the doctrine of the right hon. Member for Aldershot. Apparently, he is very concerned that nearly 125,000 postal workers have considered it right to ask that some of the cuts should be restored. They have pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman, and, so far as I understand, he is extremely sympathetic in regard to the lower-paid workers. It is with regard to them that I want to press him. The Treasury stand in the way. I think the Treasury has no right to stand in the way, and the Committee ought to support our Amendment, which is not in the ordinary sense a Vote of Censure on the administrative work of the Department, which we appreciate as much as anyone, but a declaration that, in our judgment, the postal Department itself ought to say what is right and what is wrong, and that the Treasury ought not to exercise this control over wages and conditions, especially of the lower-paid workers.
I would put in a plea to the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that the Treasury is too obdurate and too strong, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will press these gentlemen at the Treasury, and that: between now and when we meet again he will see whether be cannot meet the appeals that are made, at least on behalf of the lower-paid people. A considerable number of them are paid less than 14s. a week. Fourteen hundred male full-time workers receive less than £2 a week; 11,600 between 40s. and 50s.; and 29,300 between 50s. and 60s. Thus, 50 per cent of the 84,000 male adult manipulative staff receive less than £3 a week. That was before the bonus rate was reduced, and we can be certain that a larger number now come within that category. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee that such wages are not anything like the wages that should be paid to men carrying on this work.
I would also like to make a special appeal in regard to the auxiliary men.
The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), who remarked on an hon. Member leaving the Committee after he made his speech, and has himself now followed suit, took a little pride in the fact that he was speaking on a Vote connected with the Department of which some relative was in charge long ago. One of the first things I did when I came to the House at the end of 1910 was to worry Mr. Hobhouse about the shocking pay of auxiliary postmen. From then until to-day there has been precious little improvement. We meet these men on the streets in London and in the provinces. To a conference of postal workers one of these men wrote:
I am an auxiliary postman earning 19s. weekly; married with three children. The Postmaster will not dismiss me and the public assistance committee will not help. They refuse to subsidise Post Office wages. I am destitute. Can anything be done? 
The union cannot do anything except appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am appealing to him now. I understand that there are about 50,000 men and women in the auxiliary postal service. I thought all those years ago that in a really efficient organised Department this sort of part-time employment ought riot to exist. The dock districts of this country have been cursed with casual labour for many years, but casual labour in some respects is preferable to these auxiliary services which men are obliged to take. I know that I shall be told, as I have been told before, that there is a large number of men, and perhaps women, too, who want this sort of occupation. That, however, is only because of poverty and conditions over which they have no control. Once they are in this work it is very hard to throw it up. If the man whose letter I read threw up his job as an auxiliary postman, the public assistance committee would give him nothing but the workhouse.
I would like this Committee to join in making a united appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to defy the Treasury in this matter, and to tell the Treasury that these men and women are to be paid living wages. There is scarcely a Member of the Committee but who, when the Archbishop's Commission reported, either by written word or spoken word supported the principle that the first charge on industry was the life and well-being of those who carried on industry. Here
is a great public industry employing 130,000 people, which has this large number on less than 40s. a week and 50,000 auxiliaries who are forced to exist on very small wages. It is said that there are 14,000 auxiliary postmen whose average wages are 25s. or 26s. a week. "Average" means that some are lower and some may be a little above. It is a terrible accusation against a public Department that such wages should be paid. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said that the agricultural labourer with less wages had to pay extra for his postal service, and he advocated a very dangerous doctrine—a sort of equalitarian Socialism —because if it is true that the poorest people, directly or indirectly, pay money in order that other people may draw salaries far in excess of their earnings—which the Noble Lord argued was quite wrong—then none of us ought to be sitting here, some taking £5,000 a year, with reductions, and others taking £400 a year, with reductions, while agricultural labourers are reduced to the terrible wages to which they have to submit. When that argument has been put forward by some of my hon. Friends it has generally been received with uproarious hilarity on the other side, but no one seemed to take much notice of that statement when it was made by the Noble Lord, and, in my judgment, he had been reduced to absurdity in his argument against giving more money to these men.
Then he read us a little homily on business men, and the absurdity of the Union of Post Office Workers desiring to take any part in the management of the Post Office, and tried to infer that there was some great cleavage of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) and the postal workers. But this House, for good or for evil, drove the postal workers outside the trade union movement. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear !"] I notice that someone says "Hear, hear." You cannot have it both ways. You cannot charge us with being responsible for what they do, and at the same time not allow them to have any communication with us on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the Union of Post Office Workers claim to possess as much knowledge of how to run a public Department as the right hon. Gentleman himself. What experience had he ever had of Post Office work till he occupied his present posi-
tion? It is the general knowledge and intuition a man has which he applies to the particular job placed in front of him. We have the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) at the Dominions Office. He could take any one of the offices, and not only talk about it, but run it wherever you want it run to. When I hear this nonsense that only a particular brand of person is capable of running a Department I look around this House and see men who stand at that Box and speak learnedly about their Departments after having been in office hardly a couple of minutes, and I say to myself, "All you have to do is to have a good brief, plenty of cheek, and you will get away with it." You do not need to be trained at a university to be able to do that.
Quite seriously, we think that the workers in any industry, as I believe any intelligent employer will agree, can very often make good suggestions and give good advice and assist in the development of the industry, and that is particularly so in the case of a public interprise such as the Post Office. An hon. Member for one of the divisions of Liverpool wanted business men in particular to be consulted. There is an Advisory Council now, and we think it would be an excellent thing to have on it some representatives of workmen in order to put the point of view of the general public. If we have an Advisory Council, let it be representative of all those who have the right to advise on how to make the service more advantageous.

Sir K. WOOD: We had on the Advisory Council the late Mr. Cramp, and Mr. John Pugh and other representatives of Labour.

Mr. LANSBURY: But I think it will he found that the Union of Post Office Workers was not represented there. Perhaps I ought to have made my point a little more clear. I remember, now, that certain representatives of trade unions are on the Advisory Council, but the one union which we should have thought ought to be represented is not. I repeat that in our judgment the union representative of the men, or some of the men themselves, ought to be on the council. I should have thought, too, that in setting up the new board it would be a great advantage to put on it not a representative of other unions but one
or two men representative of those who are carrying on the work of the Department.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that while we, like everybody else, throw him bouquets for having proved himself so adaptable since he became the head of the postal service, and for carrying on the work so very efficiently, we are still disgusted with the low wages paid, especially to the lower-paid men and women in the Department, and we think that the continuation of the auxiliary service is really a. terrible disgrace to the nation. It is not something new; we cannot blame this Postmaster-General or the other for it is a system which has grown up because it is cheap. Casual labour used to be considered cheap, but no one, not even those who support Capitalism to its fullest extent, will now say that casual labour is cheap, or that paying people wages insufficient to keep them or employing them only part time is really cheap. In the long run it is dear. But finally, and I must be forgiven for repeating it, we take our stand on the basic fact that nearly every one in this House, nearly every one who has considered the question of wages and conditions from any sort of moral standpoint, has always laid down this principle, that the first charge on any industry must be the livelihood of those who carry it on, and it is on that score mainly that I base my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
Now I want to say a few words on an altogether different question, and that is the right hon. Gentleman's veto over the broadcasting of speeches. Broadcasting is one of the most powerful means of propaganda in the world. Whoever has control of broadcasting can make the issues at elections, can almost determine the final issue of an election, and at the present moment the right hon. Gentleman has not the power, as I understand, because of his colleagues in the Government, to get this business put on a sound footing. According to the Charter, as I understand, the Government have the power to go to the British Broadcasting Corporation and take the right to broadcast whatever they choose at a particular moment. They used that power during the General Strike, and can use it whenever they consider it necessary to do so. How much power really rests in the Postmaster-General 1 do not know,
but I do know this, because we have been informed by the authorities at Broadcasting House, that the Government of the day have the right, when they desire to broadcast, to go to Broadcasting House and say, "We desire to do so-and-so" and their desire must be met.
We think that the power to use the microphone at Broadcasting House ought to be applied by the Government of the day in a fair and an equitable manner, and we maintain that whenever the Government use the microphone, as they continually do, in order to state their views—as, for example, when the Secretary of State for India spoke on India, or when a Minister wishes to explain an Act of Parliament—the Opposition ought to have an equal right to reply, as is the case in this House. It is not necessary to tell us that discussions are allowed, because we admit that to the full, but what we are claiming is that when the Government of the day take the power, which the Charter gives them, to say "We desire to put before the public certain statements on public questions," that as a matter of equity they should give the same right to the Opposition. Our complaint is that the Government use that power regularly, but that we have no chance of replying. When we go to the British Broadcasting Corporation they tell us of the rights of the Government, and we have no alternative but to come to the House and put the case here.
We strongly maintain that it is an abuse of power for the Government to use the microphone in that way. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about it. We are not complaining of the ordinary talks—this man to-day and someone else to-morrow—but we are complaining that His Majesty's Government claim the right under the Charter to broadcast statements of policy, and then the British Broadcasting Corporation refuse to allow the Opposition to answer them. We—not myself, but our party—wanted to discuss the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked to broadcast, and we were to be given the opportunity of speaking after him. The Chancellor refused to make any statement on the Budget, and we were denied the right to make any statement. I think that is a dog-in-the-manger policy. They will not play themselves, and they will not let anybody else play. It is child's
play entirely. The thing would be too ludicrous if it were not so very serious. Mr. Hitler, in Germany, gained power largely through taking hold of the wireless in the fashion that this set of dictators here take hold of it, and I understand that in other countries blessed with dictators, not cursed with them like we are—well, I am only using their own language—this same thing happens.
The point I am making is quite a simple one, and I need not delay the proceedings to re-emphasise it, except to make it clear that those who control broadcasting politically really control the political destinies of the country. Broadcasting comes into every home. The speaker at the street corner, or hall, can speak to a few thousands only, but the microphone speaks to millions of people. If the right hon. Gentleman were speaking as I am to-night, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) was speaking, and the right hon. Gentleman's party was being treated as we are, whether it comprised 40, 50 or 100 hon. Members, I am quite certain that this Box would hardly prevent his coming for us hald-headed. I do not want to be so violent. I want to be quite moderate. I want him to go to the Cabinet and tell them that, as Postmaster-General and Minister in charge of broadcasting, he is not going to tolerate their dog-in-the-manger policy any longer, and that, when any Minister broadcasts on a matter of policy, the Opposition must be able to say what a nonsensical thing that policy is.

7.1 p.m.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White), my immediate predecessor at the Post Office, where his good work and, if I may say so, his good nature have left many pleasant memories, stressed the desirability of more frequent appearances of these Estimates before the House of Commons. I think the comparative infrequency of these Estimates is only a reflection of the general sense of contentment and satisfaction of the House of Commons with regard to the work and methods of the Post Office. Any self-complacency we may feel on this subject has been interrupted only by a series of criticisms of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would call a roseate character. My hon. Friend the
Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) started the Debate with a very well-worn theme—the low pay of certain grades in the Post Office. That is by no means a new matter. It has been the subject brought forward by no fewer than five deputations since the National Government came into office, and no Minister has been more willing to receive deputations, and discuss questions sympathetically, than my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
To-night I can only give the same answer as that given by my right hon. Friend to the deputations—that in existing circumstances it is impossible to promise any immediate advance in the rate of pay of any grades in the Post Office. Even the Church Congress and Archbishops quoted by the right hon. Gentleman have to face facts, and we, too, have facts before us. What the future may hold, none of us knows. We must hope for the best. Nobody sitting on the opposite side of the Committee can feel more real sympathy than we feel for these loyal and efficient servants in the lower-paid grades of the Post Office. As I say, I cannot speak for the future. The adage,
Tempora mutantur, nos et matantur in illis, may be applied to economics and politics as well as to most other matters in this world.
Another subject brought forward from the Opposition Benches was that of broadcasting. In the short time at my disposal I can only say I have taken great pains to look into every scrap of writing and literature on this subject. Quite frankly, I have come to the conclusion that the contention of the British Broadcasting Corporation that it is perfectly fair to all Governments, and shows equal impartiality to all political parties, is thoroughly well-founded. I know it is impossible to persuade the right hon. Gentleman or his friends on this point, but I cannot detect any indication of any unfair treatment of any particular party. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party does not get a fair share of broadcasting. In the arrangements made for this autumn, five speeches are to be allowed to the Government and three speeches are to be allowed to the Opposition. Most people would take that ratio of three to five as being, in the circumstances, not
only a fair but a chivalrous allotment. The Government are here representing the nation at the nation's request.

Mr. LANSBURY: We polled very nearly 7,000,000, and you 14,000,000; you are just two to one.

Sir E. BENNETT: In this Committee the case is somewhat different. Quite apart from mere numbers, the Government of the day have a national responsibility quite distinct from party interests.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is what Hitler says.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: And quite rightly, too.

Sir E. BENNETT: That is what we say, and we believe it. Hon. Members opposite seem to have lost their sense of proportion. They have no monopoly of complaint against the British Broadcasting Corporation. I would like them to have seen some of the letters which came when Professor Laski was allowed to broadcast, and describe to the British public the benefits and delights of Communism. When one sees people of diametrically opposite opinions attacking the British Broadcasting Corporation on the ground of partiality and unfairness, one begins to think that the British Broadcasting Corporation has taken the wisest and most sensible line:
Media tutissimas ibis."
There exists in this House a committee specially set up to deal with this vexed question of alleged partiality and unfairness, and the Labour party was invited to contribute a member to that body. They have failed to do so, up to the present, and I ask them in all sincerity to change their minds and send a Member to that committee to represent them on these difficult points.

Mr. ATTLEE: Surely the whole point is that these members are not to represent a particular view.

Sir E. BENNETT: I do not think that was the constitution of the committee. Members of committees of this House are generally representative of various sections of opinion. I imagine that a representative Member of the Labour party would be extremely useful.
There are a great many other suggestions which have been made by hon. Members. They are so many, indeed,
that it is quite impossible for me to deal with all of them. I found the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) very interesting. I thought we should get penny postage from somebody before the evening was out. The right hon. Gentleman talked about bishops, and I remember the late Bishop of Oxford stated in my presence that when he went on his Confirmation rounds in the rural areas, and had lunch at the vicarages, he was always sure to find two things—cold chicken and "The Church's one Foundation." With regard to penny postage, I do not think my right hon. Friend, or I, have attended a single dinner party, public or private, when we have not had the subject brought up. My answer this evening must be that when people are willing to submit to an increase of Income Tax of 2½d. or 3d. in the £, we shall be willing to change from the 1½d. to the 1d. stamp.
The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) referred to the supply of timber for telegraph posts. I may say, in passing, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) that the suggestion that timber for telegraph poles comes from Russia is unfounded—no telegraph pole, to my knowledge, ever reaches us from Russia. For various reasons, our main supplies of timber come from the vast forests of Norway and Finland. Trees grow there more slowly, and are well suited to our requirements. Means 'are taken to secure timber from our own country, but in Great Britain during War-time our supplies were largely drawn upon, and have consequently become limited. Our great national forests are, as yet, young. For some time to come we shall have to continue to look forward to getting the bulk of our supplies from Scandinavia and Finland. Measures are taken to secure timber from our own country. The Scots pine still holds an unrivalled position of superiority to all timber for our purposes. We are doing all we can to get homegrown timber. The Forestry Commission is working hard. If any hon. Member should be motoring through the New Forest, and could spare half an hour to look at the work of the commission, he would find it well spent in observing the interesting sight of the timber being felled and creosoted for telephone pur-
poses. Up to the present we are able to supply from this country only something like 16,000 poles out of 176,000.

Captain P. MACDONALD: The hon. gentleman has not said anything about the subject of Empire timber.

Sir E. BENNETT: On the subject of Empire timber the hon. and gallant Member is not very accurate. The hon. and gallant Member put forward a rather rosy picture regarding the possibilities of securing very large supplies from our own Empire. I do not know on what he based his facts. We are taking pains to get any timber we can from Canada or Newfoundland, but there are various difficulties in the way, apart from the question of freight charges. Moreover, we have to test these timbers, even when grown in Canada, to see whether they are suitable to the vagaries of our own climate. Any considerable supply of timber from the Empire, I am afraid, for the time being, more or less out of the question. We have done our best to discover which of the Empire timbers can be used, and we are testing timbers from New South Wales and British Guiana. While we are doing our best to secure supplies from the Empire, and making all the efforts we can to get a supply for Great Britain, we are forced to rely chiefly upon a supply of timber from other countries in the North of Europe.
The question of the lower-paid workers has been raised on two occasions from the Opposition side of the Committee. If and when any change takes place in the payment of a lower rate of wages at the Post Office, it will be made according to the recognised machinery which controls the whole wage system of the Civil Service. I say that because there is a recognised machinery by which the wages of the Civil Service are determined. The arguments that have been put forward more than once, that the mere fact that we have a surplus in the Post Office justifies a demand for increased wages, is not a valid one. One cannot draw analogies between the business of the Post Office and the business of private enterprise, for the so-called surplus of the Post Office is not a commercial profit in the ordinary sense of the word. We lose on our telegraphs, and on other services; the service that mainly produces this great surplus is the 10. postage. Whatever the wages may be, we cannot admit that we can increase them merely because we have a sur-
plus. That is a most undesirable point of view, and I think that most hon. Members will agree with me. Through basing a claim for higher wages on the existence of a surplus a state of things might arise in which the interests of the postal worker would conflict with those of the general public. Suppose that a surplus is available for cheapening the telephone system, and that then a demand is made for an increase of wages. We should have to decide whether to agree to that demand or to cheapen the cost of the telephone. There you would have a conflict between the interests of the worker and the interest of the community,

Mr. LOGAN rose—

Sir E. BENNETT: I am sorry that I have not the time to give way. I was saying that I do not want a claim for higher wages to be based upon a surplus, because there are other and better grounds.

Mr. LOGAN: Surely—

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Crookshank): Order !

Mr. LOGAN: But surely, when the Minister makes a statement—

Sir E. BENNETT: My statement is that I do not think that a claim for higher wages should be based upon the extent of the surplus.

Mr. LOGAN: On what other ground can you base it? Are you prepared to give way?

Mr. MAXTON: Why do you not give way?

Sir E. BENNETT: No. Other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. MAXTON: You are very considerate.

Sir E. BENNETT: There are many other points upon which I should like to touch. I should like very much to answer some of the questions put by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Weimer) but time, I am afraid—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member can surely find time to answer.

Sir E. BENNETT: —makes it impossible for me to do so. He and other hon. Members have stressed the subject
of advertising and the results. At this moment we are employing 750 full-time officers in the provinces, and we are using every means in the way of advertising our goods, literature, posters, exhibitions, and, shortly, experimental telephones in the schools. We are also in a short time making use of films up and down the country to illustrate various phases of our work. At this moment we are allotting £75,000 to the expenses of advertising. I should like to go on, and say more about this work, but I must now make room for one or two other hon. Members who would like to put their points.

7.21 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I should like to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the Postmaster-General upon the very interesting statement that he has made. We have had a number of points brought before us this evening, but there are only one or two to which I want specially to draw attention. Anyone who has studied the postal conditions of this country must have been struck by the information given by the hon. Gentleman as to the amount of money in the Savings Bank, and by the interesting points he brought before us in regard to the telephone service. As one who is Member for the Division in which the Mount Pleasant Post Office is situated, I should like to thank him for the statement he has made that the building is to be completed. It seems a great pity that for many years it has been impossible to complete work in that centre. I hope that he will feel at liberty, as far as possible, to carry that extension to other building schemes. That brings me to the question of the control of the Treasury. I shall take advantage of the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to give hon. Members privately a little more information, and I shall be interested to hear what have been the actual concessions made by the Treasury. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has been entirely mistaken as to the wage question. It seems to me that the first and the fundamental principle that you have to recognise is that you cannot pay one set of wages in one Government department and a lower class of wages in another. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Treasury having a voice in regard to what is going on in the Post Office has been mistaken, because
the Treasury are the one party responsible for seeing that wages, whatever the standard may be, are uniform. It would be quite unfair, when A. was doing efficient work in a certain Department—shall we say at the Admiralty—that B., doing exactly the same class of work in the Post Office, should be paid a better wage simply because the Post Office has a large surplus. The argument that the right hon. Gentleman has used in which he suggests that the surplus of the Post Office has to be considered, is exceedingly bad for the employés of any other Government department. What would the right hon. Gentleman say, suppose there was not a surplus but a. loss on the postal service? Are we to argue, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that if you distribute the surplus in wages, you may, at a moment when you have a loss in the Post Office—

Mr. LANSBURY rose—

Sir G. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman need not disturb me. He said that there is a surplus in the Post Office, and that therefore it should be distributed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I said that wages should be a first charge.

Sir G. GILLETT: He said more than that. It is quite true that they should be a first charge, but the right hon. Gentleman has been laying stress on this question of a surplus. I say that the surplus has nothing to do with the wage question. The men are entitled-to a certain wage, and they are entitled to that wage whether there is a surplus or whether there is not.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear !

Sir G. GILLETT: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that there is a surplus, and therefore there ought to be an increase in wages. He has brought forward a dangerous principle. I think that on this question of wages it is well to remember that those of us who were in the last Labour Government were equally responsible for the wages in the Post Office, then and now, and we need not be pretending that we were any better then than we are now. Mr. Lees-Smith, the then Postmaster-General, did, I believe, make a move in the question of auxiliary postmen. He made two
attempts, one of which was to allow a number of them to come on to the regular staff at once, and he also made an attempt to see that some of the vacancies in the future would be available to men on the temporary staff. If there should be time this evening, I hope that the Postmaster-General will reply, and will let us know how that scheme is working. I believe that, as a result of it, hundreds of men have been put upon the permanent staff who would simply have been auxiliary postmen.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will also let us know a little more about the classes of employés who are receiving less than 40s. per week. I know that there are a large number of them, and that many of them are in the telegraph service. It would be very useful to know how many of them are men with families, and how many are really lads in the telegraph service, or are in a similar position. There is another point which I have to put to the Postmaster-General. I have had a complaint made to me. It is a very small matter, but it is causing a certain amount of discontent. In the sorters' department, some of the men who have reached the age limit—there are one or two, or may be a dozen—are being kept on, whereas they might step out of the way so that others might come on. If the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to reply, I should be delighted to have information on that point.
The Leader of the Opposition should bear in mind that in the early days, when there was a great increase in the powers of the newspaper world, I used to think that everybody would finally share the views of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, or the other great newspaper lords. I have discovered that, after all, the power of the newspaper is much more limited than we at one time assumed. The right hon. Gentleman will also find that the power of broadcasting becomes equally ineffective. If he is dissatisfied, I think that the Postmaster-General will find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is probably also dissatisfied, and that, in steering a middle course between the two right hon. Gentlemen, he may congratulate himself.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to use the limited time that is left. I heard the Post-
master-General's statement, and many of the subsequent salvoes of praise that were rattled round about his ears and round about the Post Office generally. I feel that I cannot join in this great chorus of praise. The Debate has been taken part in, largely, till now, by ex-Postmasters- General and ex-Assistant Postmasters-General. They all seem to get a certain virus into the blood, and, however short a time they stay in that Department, the poison works, so that when they come out of it they see nothing but good in that great national service—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL [Lords]

(By Order).

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 21.—(Power to stop up Ade1phi Terrace.)

7.30 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided always that a new public thoroughfare comparable to the existing Ade1phi Terrace shall be erected on the south from of the proposed new building connecting with Adam Street and Robert Street with a view over the gardens and river as at present.
Whatever is the eventual fate of this Bill, it is clear that, if the House should see fit on Third Reading to pass it, it would be, I was going to say greatly improved, but at any rate what we think would be the lamentable loss that would be caused by the passage of the Bill would be very much mitigated, if the public had kept for them in the future the path that they have been so accustomed to take round the Ade1phi, where they can get the view of the river which so many generations have enjoyed from the street that runs in front of Ade1phi Terrace. As to the value of the Bill, I can only give to the House, as my justification for moving this Amendment, the opinion that I have obtained from two architects whom, I think, everyone, whether in this House or outside, will
agree in regarding as two of the greatest architects of our day, Since the Bill was taken in the House last time, I have written a letter. quite neutral in its import, to Sir Edwin Lutyens on the one hand, and to Sir Herbert Baker on the other, asking them if they would give me, quite impartially, their opinions on the Bill, and on certain points connected with' it, such as this. I wrote:
If you could give me your frank and unbiased opinion, it would help me to make up my mind about the line that I should take, and it you would let me make your opinion known, it would, I believe, help other Members of Parliament as well.
I think the House would like to hear the opinion of these two architects in regard to this question of the view from Adelphi Terrace. Sir Herbert Baker writes as follows:
I think all architects and lovers of beauty and of historical London will agree that the Adelphi buildings are a unique gem of the classical grace in architecture of the brothers Adam. They would be considered a priceless possession by any city in the world. If they are destroyed, we should have to go to Edinburgh for any grouped example of their work, and separate houses by them in London will no doubt in time disappear, as they are even now doing.
I will not go into other parts of his letter, which are not immediately germane to this Amendment, but he goes on to deal with the point of the Amendment, and says about it:
If a new building is allowed, there should be insistence upon an outer terrace road which would maintain the only existing high view over the river for the enjoyment of the public.
I will now, with the permission of the House, give the opinion of Sir Edwin Lutyens, and again I would emphasise the fact that the letter which I wrote to these gentlemen was not a letter leading them to give me a certain reply. I think that anyone who read it would agree—I will not trouble the House with it—that it was as unbiased as any letter asking for a frank opinion could be. The answer of Sir Edwin Lutyens was as follows:
Viewed as a part of the range of buildings on the Thames Embankment, Adelphi Terrace, with its grove of trees, is a very pleasant relief from the Savoy Hotel and the Shell-Mex building. I do not mind the trees partly obscuring the Terrace; it gives a sense of something withdrawn and secluded, as contrasted with other obstrusive buildings. I have no doubt the trees could be trimmed, and possibly in course of time even replaced, so as to preserve this quality and yet allow of a freer view
over the river from the Terrace in summer time when the leaves are out. As regards the intrinsic worth of the Terrace, it would, in the form in which it was left by the brothers Adam, be a monument of very great artistic value, which would also be of first-rate importance as probably the best example of any remaining in England of that period and style of architecture.
I would ask the House to reflect on the opinions of probably the two leading architects of our time in England. There are thousands of people, including myself and many other Members of the House, who have gone down Robert Street and taken a view over the Terrace which cannot be got from any other point that is free to the public. People may say that the buildings on the South side of the Thames at the present moment are ugly, and so they are, some of them; but does anyone who regards them as ugly think that they cannot be removed or improved as time goes on? That objection, therefore, cannot be urged as a final objection in the way of this Amendment. I ask most sincerely, even at this late hour, that this right of the public shall be maintained. In a Whip which was issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I was struck by this sentence:
In our judgment the passing of the Bill as now amended is the only method of securing Parliamentary control of the amenities of the area.
What a way it will be of securing Parliamentary control of the amenities of the area if the wonderful view which Parliament has possessed for generations, and still hopes to possess, is destroyed. Without the proviso of this Amendment, they will only be able to go up a blind alley on the one side or on the other—the sort of thing which in the old days we were told the police and other authorities peculiarly disliked. The free walk right round, which generations have enjoyed, will, but for this Amendment, be taken away under the Bill. We have not too many beautiful spots in London. There are beauty spots, and there are beautiful views. This is one which is unique of its kind, and we cannot afford to have more destroyed than we can help. I hope that in this respect at any rate the promoters, even if they get the Third Reading of the Bill, may be ready to meet our views, and to save, not only the Parliamentary control, but the public possession, of these amenities in this area.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: As one who had the honour of being a member of the committee which inquired very carefully into the whole of this question, I should like to take this opportunity of referring to some of the matters which were brought before us. During that inquiry, we took a large amount of evidence, from a good many points of view, on both artistic and practical questions, and among other points that came under our consideration was the very question which is the subject of this Amendment. I think we shall have to accept it as a fact that the days of Adelphi Terrace, as we know it at present, are numbered. Whether this Bill be passed or not, the existing buildings are likely to disappear within a very short time. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] That is a fact.
Coming more directly to the Amendment, and dealing with it as a practical question, I see only two ways in which the proposal contained in it could be carried out. One would be by placing a second roadway above the lower roadway, and the other would be by placing a second roadway above and behind the lower roadway which is proposed. As regards the first method, we cannot, of course, tell with absolute certainty what the views of the Highways Committee will be, but the Select Committee had before them evidence from highly placed officials who told us that in their opinion such an arrangement was not likely to be allowed, as the council had of recent years set their face against any roadways which were not open to the sky. That seems to me to be likely—I would not care to put it higher—to rule out the first suggestion.
The second, namely, that the lower road should be a continuation of the one in front of Savoy Court, past the Shell-Mex building and on past the Adelphi, and that there should be another road on the level of the present Adelphi Terrace, and standing behind the lower road, would mean taking away such an immense depth of frontage that in all probability the promoters would decline to go on with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] That may be. Although I think the promoters could hardly be bound by evidence which they gave across the table at a moment's notice on a proposal of that kind, nevertheless they
did indicate that it would mean the deprivation of such a large depth of frontage that it would hardly be worth pursuing. That would be a Pyrrhic victory for the opponents of this Measure, because, instead of the existing Ade1phi buildings, they would get some built within the margin of the restriction imposed by Parliament, but over which Parliament would have no further control —buildings, in fact, which would be limited to a height of 20 feet in front, but which at the back could go to a greater height than the existing buildings; and there would be no control, if the Bill were dropped, of the elevation and general appearance of those buildings.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the actual merits. I suggest that this Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, and would be more suitable as a ground for the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. I should like to say a word in regard to the merits of the particular proposal that is put forward. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) an almost lyrical expression of delight at the view from Adelphi Terrace. It will be some comfort to him, I think, to know that, as the result of the work of the Committee upstairs, we have secured from the promoters the promise that, if it goes through, there will be two viewpoints retained at the end of Robert Street and at the end of Adam Street, both adequate to carry a large number of people, both out of the traffic area and, therefore, available for them to stand upon for any length of time and enjoy the beauties of the view. But there is a, practical point which I think the Movers of the Amendment have possibly not given enough weight to.
There is the question not only of the view from Adelphi Terrace but of the view of Adelphi Terrace, for instance from the Embankment, from Hungerford Bridge, or even from the South side of the river. Of course, when we get to matters of personal taste, it is no good being very didactic because, whatever we say, we are sure to find equal, perhaps greater, authority in direct opposition to us. But, looking at Adelphi Terrace from these other points, I believe it will make a nicer line to have a lower road passing Savoy Court and the Shell-Mex building
and carrying on beyond the Adelphi, and possibly into Charing Cross or whatever its ultimate destination may be, than a sort of crow's nest erected to carry on over this one portion. I believe the general line will really look better with the road hidden away behind the Embankment Gardens than with a sort of road rising up out of nowhere and coming down again which we should get if the Amendment were carried.

7.48 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: There are several points in the speech to which we have just listened on which I should like to comment. The crux of the matter was very pungently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir J. Withers) on the Second Reading Debate when he said that what we wanted to ascertain was whether the public were getting adequate compensation for the undoubted rights that they were giving up. For nearly 200 years there has been a semicircular roadway connecting up John Street, Adelphi, with Adam Street and Robert Street through Adelphi Terrace, so that people can circle round one side and out at the other. I was not aware that the Fire Brigade Committee of the London County Council had altered their rule but, when I put up a somewhat similar scheme a few years ago in another part of London to the London County Council, I was informed that their Fire Brigade Committee would not approve of any new road running into a cul-de-sac where their engines and high fire escapes would not be able to turn. That is a point which has not been alluded to before and which is germane to the Amendment.
The public have had a right of way round this Adelphi building for many years. I am not now discussing whether it is a building of merit or of demerit. In any event, if this Bill passes, we are giving up very great rights and, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington) says that so far as the public are concerned it is more desirable that any new building should be kept in line, I do not at all agree. The little strip of Embankment Gardens in front of the Savoy Hotel and the Shell-Mex building is practically a pathway with a few trees on either side but, when you come out on the further end, where the Adelphi is set back, you have something in the nature of a small park. I
would rather have the Ade1phi rebuilt by the trustees on the present site in any way they please—and, as common-sense Englishmen, they are not likely to cover it entirely with Epstein statues—and set back with a low building not exceeding 20 feet on the foreground than have a new building under the most careful supervision coming out right on to the Embankment Gardens on the line of the Shell-Mex building and the Savoy Hotel. If you walk along those two bits of garden, you will see that the Ade1phi is far away back and you have a feeling of spaciousness, whereas in the other case you have a feeling as if these great stone masses are going to fall on top of you and you had better hurry up in case something befalls.
I cannot see why the public should give this up unless we are satisfied that we have preponderating advantages given to us in its place. I should be the last man to interfere with an owner doing what he will with his property provided that he observes the law and does not injure anyone else, but this is quite a different matter. It is a very curious thing altogether about this site that the people of Scotland have fully maintained their reputation as clever bargainers all the way through. First of all, the Scottish Adam brothers obtained an Act of Parliament in 1771 to deal with the site, and they embanked it and built Ade1phi Terrace. They then found that it was not a very profitable speculation, so they came to Parliament again in 1774 and said: "We are going to lose money over this. Will you allow us to have a lottery to make good the loss and put us in funds?" Parliament again came to the rescue of these Scottish gentlemen and they made a very handsome profit by disposing of the property in a lottery.
When I saw that a whip had been issued opposing this Amendment signed by a considerable number of Scotsmen, many of them well known, I wondered if these Adelphi trustees were Scottish people. My secretary tells me that the bank with which one of the promoters has been honourably concerned for many years past has become the Royal Bank of Scotland. They are, therefore, still closely connected with Scotland and they come again to Parliament and say: "We want to make more. We are not satisfied
with the valuable property that we have obtained. We want to rebuild it, but it is not sufficient to rebuild it. We want to rebuild on to the foreground as well," whereas Parliament in its wisdom in 1771 said: "You shall not go up more than 20 feet or else you will spoil the amenities of the district." I do not see that we have had any case submitted to the House which justifies that. They say: "It is true you are giving us amenities which are worth][50,000, but as against that we are giving you street widenings which are worth even more than that figure." My reply to that is that these street widenings are not required unless you put up a huge building on the site. It is just as though I said to someone: "Do something for me and I will give you my watch chain." He may say: "I do not want your watch chain. I have a very good one of my own." We have a very good circular watch chain round the Adelphi building with views over the gardens, and I had much rather keep that than have this foreground built upon.
I understand that the promoters are prepared to accept a suggestion that they should put a. new roadway in the forefront of their new building arcaded all the way along, but I have had a letter from the Westminster City Council this morning saying they are not willing to approve of the whole roadway made like that. I have myself suggested, as a possible compromise, that instead of having what I described in the Second Reading Debate as a tunnel-funnel roadway—Adelphi Terrace being made a tunnel as to 50 feet, then a well hole up to the sky of approximately 112 feet and then another tunnel of 50 feet —that tunnel and funnel should be moved to the forefront of the new building. That is to say, they should be allowed to build over the site as they like but they should put this wellhole or tunnel in the forefront of the ground along which the new Adelphi Terrace would be built and, instead of having a tunnel of 50 feet on the Adam Street side and a tunnel on the Robert Street side, they should have an arcaded roadway with the right to build over the arches overlooking the river and the gardens. That will take very much less of the superficial area from the promoters and I have reason to believe that it would be acceptable to those who are opposing the Bill if we have to give up Adelphi Terrace.
I cannot see that the Westminster City Council could object to this because, surely, it is better to have an open air space to the sky, as agreed to by them, if put in the middle of the site and, instead of having a tunnel of 50 feet at each end, it would only be half a tunnel. That is to say, the tunnel would be open on the side towards the river. I think that suggestion is deserving of consideration. It would need only a very few words added to the Amendment, provided the House was satisfied with having 50 feet at each end arcaded. Of course, the middle part is provided for already by the Amendment. For years past the public have been able to circulate round this building. We are giving up great and valuable rights. Surely, if we cannot preserve the Ade1phi, we should preserve for the public, at any rate, a thoroughfare open on the riverside instead of this horrible tunnel-funnel street where the public would have to go right underneath this large block of buildings with only a funnel in the middle to give them air. I support the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I had a good deal of sympathy with the opposition to the Bill in its earlier stages, and I have listened to all the arguments, but I feel that the opponents now are carrying the matter too far. They have had every opportunity of placing their ideas before both Houses of Parliament. In the other place they had them considered most carefully. They had a very fine public Debate. The Bill was also considered very carefully in Committee in another place. The Bill came down to this House and we spent 31 hours discussing the question, and an Instruction was ultimately passed on to the Committee upstairs. The opponents have had an opportunity of placing the whole of the facts before the Committee, and now that the Bill has come down I feel that further discussion at any length will really be a waste of time. Look at the position in which we are placed to-day. We are at the end of this part of the Session. Our Debate this afternoon on the very important subject of the postal service has been cut short, and we are faced, at 10 o'clock, with a large number of very important Votes which are to be placed before the Committee and passed without discussion. In these circumstances, to take up any more time in the discussion of this question will not reflect
very well upon the businesslike aptitude of the House.
I am very much taken with the interest which my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is showing in this question. I had never looked upon him as a sentimentalist before, but it is obvious that he is a sentimentalist and has allowed his heart to run away with his head in this matter. I hope that the House will decide once and for all to allow the Bill to go through. The Westminster City Council can be relied upon to see to all the details when they come before them. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington will no doubt be considered very carefully. But we do want to get on with the Business to-night, and I suggest that we should, without much further discussion, take a Division, if necessary, and go forward with the more important Business on the Order Paper.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that the House ought to allow the last speech to pass altogether unanswered. After all, what is the Bill? Here you have certain persons who hold some property which is subject to restrictions laid down by this House. They come to the House and ask that those restrictions should be abolished in their favour, and that advantage is to mean, so we understand, a sum of £150,000.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): May I correct the hon. Gentleman?—£125,000.

Mr. ATTLEE: Of course I accept the correction of £125,000. Despite recent precedents, I do not think that the House ought to consider making large donations of this kind to private persons without some inquiry. The hon. Member for Wad-sail (Mr. Leckie) rather suggested that it was the fault of this House that the Bill was being discussed in the midst of a lot of important business. It is not the fault of this House in the least that this Bill has been brought forward.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not on the Third Reading.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am dealing with the point made by the hon. Member, in re-
gard to which he was not corrected, that there was some special need for disposing of the Amendment at once in view of the state of business in the House. I have yet to learn that there was any special urgency for the business. I suggest that the proposal which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) is a very reasonable one. He suggests that we should continue to have this pleasant roadway from the Strand, with a view of the river. Why should we, without any discussion, submit to having the roadway done away with? I was not very much impressed by the points made against the road. The suggestion is that you cannot have in London some feature that is not alreády there. I should have thought that something in the way of a jutting roadway like that would be rather a pleasant feature for the Embankment. I cannot see any impossibility about it. It is extraordinary that these promoters who come before the House and ask to be allowed special privileges and to have this large sum of money, should seem very unwilling to concede anything to this House in its place. As has already been said, the suggestion that they are to put up a lot of money for road widening does not go to the point at all.
The only reason why those roads have to be widened is because they want to put up high buildings. Therefore they are not really giving a quid pro quo at all. As to whether you should have a lower or an upper roadway, I do not see why you should not have a lower roadway and a kind of walk up in the air, as it were, with a view of the river as well. It ought to be clear to us beyond all doubt that what is to happen to this particular site, for it is a very valuable site and one which is dear to many Londoners, is that these proposals are not going forward without someone doing pretty well out of them. -There is no difficulty as far as I know in letting the accommodation at the Adelphi. The Adelphi, I understand, is not in such a condition that it should be pulled down at once. If new and enlarged buildings are to be put up, it is because some people think that they are going to do pretty well out of them. I cannot see why, for the benefit of Londoners, we should not get the fullest public advantage.
It may be said that the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth has not yet been fully looked into, and that it is a very difficult thing to make, and so forth. Why the extraordinary haste about this matter I cannot see why it is necessary to get the Bill through before we rise. I have seldom known of a private Bill being brought forward and put through at this pace. I think that all Members who are Londoners, and, after all, London is the capital city, ought to look carefully into this matter and see that we get good value for the public. If private enterprise is to do all right—we are not taking away the value of private property—we ask that we should get our fair share of amenities and values. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth is a very good suggestion. We must remember that we cannot attack the trustees. It has been pointed out that they are trustees who are solely concerned with making as much money as possible for the people for whom they hold this trust. Therefore, we do not attack them in the least for trying to get every penny out of us but the difficulty from the point of view of Londoners is that they are not concerned with the aesthetic and public-spirited motives which animate the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). They cannot be, because they have their duties as trustees, and therefore it behoves this House to act as trustees for the general public. If there is any difficulty in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, there is no reason to rush the matter. They can very well hold it over and bring it up again when they have had time to consider it at the latter part of this Session. In the meantime, they can circulate their objections, and the right hon Member for Tamworth can circulate the picture of his scheme, but do not let us sell our birthright because this thing is being rushed through at the fag end of the Session.

8.10 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: There are one or two points which, I think, I ought to put before the House as to what happened in Committee on the point which is dealt with in this particular Amendment. Before I do so, I feel bound to say a word in reply to what
the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has just said as to the Bill being rushed. That is a matter upon which I feel somewhat strongly personally. The Bill was dealt with in another place with unusual facilities for those who were opposing it in what they believed to be the interests of the general public, and a special locus standi to appear before the Committee was granted to certain bodies who could have had no locus standi in this House. The hon. Member knows as well as anybody that it is not intended that this Session shall continue for any length of time when we come back after the Recess. The question, therefore, for the House on that point, if and so far as there is any question—and that is a question for the House to judge—the question is whether the House is going to throw upon the promoters the heavy burden of having to bring in a, new Bill in another Session of Parliament, after all the work, trouble and expense incurred in promoting this Bill and carrying it through all the lengthy procedure in another place and the ordinary procedure in this House and before the Unopposed Bill Committee—

Mr. ATTLEE: Has it not been the case that a Bill has been carried over to another Session?

Sir D. HERBERT: I am speaking from recollection, but I do not know of any case where that has been done with regard to a Private Bill, except in the case of a dissolution or of other special circumstances. However, the matter upon which I really want to assure the House is, that in so far as this Bill has been pushed forward in any way by me, it has only been done in the performance of my duty.

Sir A. STEELAMAITLAND: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it has not been a precedent in the case of some railway Bills of carrying them over, or whether indeed it is clear that the Session is to come to an end on Friday? I should be the very last to suggest that my right hon. Friend had done anything but what was strictly right.

Sir D. HERBERT: Perhaps I have been a little thin-skinned in this matter. At any rate, perhaps there have been harder things said outside the House than have been said inside. Of course, it is not suggested for one moment that the
Session is to end on Friday. What has been said is that we shall adjourn on Friday, but when we meet again after the Recess it will only be for the shortest possible time before the new Session commences. I am afraid that I cannot answer from memory as to whether a railway Bill as such has ever been carried over. At any rate, it is fairly obvious that at this stage there will be some difficulty in doing it.
I come to the question of the particular Amendment. I want, first of all, to point out what it really proposes, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) seemed to think that his Amendment meant something different from what the Amendment says. Apparently he was under the impression that under the Amendment the proposed roadway or thoroughfare now suggested would do away with the proposed roadway through the centre of the building which is to be erected. This Amendment does not say so. Therefore, I call the attention of the House to the fact that if the Amendment were carried in its present form— [Interruption.] The hon. Member is a little late in saying it, can be altered; he should have thought it out when drafting his Amendment. it would mean that the promoters would have to make the roadway that is proposed, through the building, covered at both ends, and an additional upper roadway in front of the building. That would mean an immense tax upon the value of the property.
While the Debate has been going on I have been trying to see whether I could make any arrangement which would satisfy the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the hon. Member for South Kensington, and which would be accepted by the promoters. First of all, I ought to say that the Committee were satisfied from the evidence before them that the local authorities would object to an upper roadway over the proposed lower roadway. Then comes the alternative question of another roadway, not above, but alongside the lower roadway. The evidence that we got as to the view of the local authorities on that point was not so conclusive, but we had the opinion of the City of Westminster surveyor, who said that his advice would be against it.
That was a point on which the Committee did not think it necessary to obtain further evidence, for the simple reason that the promoters said that if they were obliged to give up that extra land for the whole width of the roadway, it would so detract from the value of their property that they would prefer to rest upon their rights as they existed now, without the removal of the restriction. In other words, they preferred not to go on with the Bill if it was to be amended in that form.
The other proposal is a half-way proposal, namely, that there should be an upper footpath behind the proposed lower road, but above the proposed arcaded footway on the level of the lower roadway. My right hon. Friend intimated to me that if I could get consent to something of that kind he and his friends might be prepared to accept it and to withdraw their opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill. I have done my best in that regard, but at the moment there are very considerable difficulties. I have been authorised by the promoters to say that they would not object to the arcaded pathway above the arcaded footway now proposed and on the level of the present Ade1phi Terrace, not exceeding 10 feet in width, provided, and this is a very important proviso, that the local authorities—by the local authorities I mean the London County Council and the Westminster City Council—raise no objection to it.
It is only fair to tell the House that I am practically certain, from evidence given before the Committee, that the local authorities would raise objection to this proposal, and I think the House will agree with me that I cannot find it consistent with my duty to accept, at any rate at this stage, an amendment to a Bill which would force the local authorities to give that consent. The House by doing that would be over-riding the powers and duties which are given to and vested in the local authorities under the London Building Acts. The consequential results of doing anything of that kind would be so serious that I do not think any Private Bill Committee of this House would ever agree to override the powers of the local authorities in that way.
Therefore I am afraid that the only suggestion I can make to my right hon. Friend is this, that the promoters would give an undertaking, if the Amendment is withdrawn and the Bill allowed to go through in its present form, that in the preparation of their plans for submission to the local authorities they would provide for such an upper arcaded footway, but on the distinct understanding that if the local authorities object to that arcaded footway they would be relieved from the undertaking. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to deal with the matter in that way and whether he and his friends would rest upon the undertaking which I am authorised to give on behalf of the promoters, that in the preparation of their plans they would provide for such a pathway but that they should be released from the obligation to carry it out if the local authorities object. If so, I might be able to arrange the matter in that way.
I will say nothing more on the merits of the Amendment, although perhaps it would be only reasonable to point out that the Committee have been to the greatest possible trouble and have exercised every care to preserve the viewpoints desired by the Opposition, and by obtaining those view-points they have obtained better view-points than the existing Ade1phi Terrace, because they are carried forward to a very considerable extent.

Mr. MOLSON: I understand that the effect of that compromise would, in effect, be that we should withdraw our opposition to the Bill to-night and allow it to go through, but if the Westminster City Council object to this arcaded footway in front of the building our opposition would have been withdrawn and we should not get any quid pro quo. I am wondering whether the Chairman of Ways and Means thinks that we might arrive at a compromise on these lines, that we would give an undertaking not to oppose the Bill when the House resumes, which may be only a matter of two or three days. If there was no opposition the Bill would go through in a few minutes, but if the Westminster City Council do object to this special point, to which we attach a great deal of importance, perhaps we might be able to reserve our right to contest the matter further.

Captain SIDNEY HERBERT: Is it not the case that the promoters would agree to a suggestion for a footpath eight feet wide but not 10 feet wide 7

Sir D. HERBERT: If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters are prepared to accept my suggestion I should want to be careful that I got the undertaking in a form which was definitely approved by the promoters, and I shall no doubt have an opportunity during the further course of the Debate of finding out whether I can get the approval of the promoters to that undertaking. I am not in a position at the moment to say whether only an eight foot footway would be accepted by the promoters and not a 10 foot footway. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), the difficulty I see about that is this, that in the first place I am a little doubtful, indeed I feel fairly certain I could not, as to whether between now and November next I could get any definite arrangement with the local authorities one way or the other.
Let me explain why. The consent or otherwise of the local authorities could not be obtained to a scheme of this kind unless and until they had before them I will not say every detail but in outline, at any rate, the complete plans of the whole of the proposed new buildings, and when you add to that the fact that this Bill has to go back to another place for it to deal with the Amendments which were made in Committee, I think it would be quite impracticable. Therefore, I do not feel that I can go beyond the suggestion I have made. But I want to be perfectly frank to the House. In my view —I may be wrong, and I hope I am—it is practically certain that the local authorities would object to this. That is the most I can offer to those who are supporting the Amendment, that is, an undertaking on the lines which I have suggested. Let me add this, that while I have been speaking I have taken the opportunity of having a communication made with the promoters and I am given to understand that I am authorised to give an undertaking in the terms I have stated, subject to the one alteration that the width of the upper arcaded footway shall not exceed eight feet instead of 10 feet.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Why should not this House override the local authorities?

Sir D. HERBERT: I thought that I had already answered that point. I do not want to go into detail a gain, but the overriding of the rights and duties of the local authorities in a matter which is dealt with by the London Building Acts is inevitably such a serious matter that in my own opinion, judging from my experience in dealing with Private Bills, it would be a very dangerous thing indeed for the House to attempt to interfere with these particular powers. Indeed, it is a common form which occurs in this particular Bill in two places, that the restrictions which are put upon the estate owners are not to derogate in any way from the rights and powers of the local authorities in regard to buildings.

8.30 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Many of those who have addressed the House have made the excuse that they are not London Members. I am not a London Member, but I am not going to make that an excuse for entering into the Debate. This is not a matter which affects London Members only. Anything which affects London does not affect London only, it affects something which is national property. I listened carefully to the proceedings which took place before the matter was sent to the Committee and, frankly, I was one of those who voted for the Bill going to Committee largely on the ground that there would be full opportunity for these matters to be discussed. Unfortunately, although there is a report from the Committee I can find no report of the evidence given or the discussion which took place. That is a great drawback, because I was relying on reading what was said and done in the Committee. I want to be respectful to the Chairman of Ways and Means, but as an ordinary Member of the House I must object to the arguing that has taken place at this stage as to what might and what might be acceptable. That should have been done in the Committee. I object at this particular time to anyone saying what the promoters say they will give and on what conditions they will give.

Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. Member is not quite fair to the Committee. These matters were gone into most fully and it is not the fault of the Committee if, when they have discussed them carefully and given their decision, the House wants
to go into them all over again. But beyond that, may I suggest that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) apparently is now dealing with a matter which might more properly be dealt with on the Third Reading. He has departed somewhat from the Amendment.

Sir J. LAMB: I am speaking in support of the Amendment because it is the only thing I can see that we are likely to get out of this Bill. I repeat, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to the Committee, but we have not had an opportunity of reading the evidence given or the discussions in the Committee. I think the Committee should have given an opportunity to Members of the House of seeing the proceedings in this particular case.

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Member asked for the proceedings?

Sir J. LAMB: I am told that a report of the proceedings is not available, and I do not think it should be necessary for every Member to ask for it. I understand that they are not provided.

Sir D. HERBERT: It is a perfectly well known procedure of this House that no shorthand note is taken of proceedings before the Unopposed Bill Committee, and it is equally well known that the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, who takes such an interest can attend the proceedings of the Committee.

Sir J. LAMB: If I had known that it was necessary for me to attend the proceedings of the Committee in order to become acquainted with them—in the case of other Committees it is usual to give Members of the House an opportunity of reading them—I should have attended the Committee and heard the Debates. But even now, I understand, a new undertaking is being offered to the House by the promoters. If the undertaking was given in Committee it is unnecessary that it should be given here now. I maintain my objection to the way in which the proposal is coming before the House. Having listened to the Debate, I have heard and can appreciate what the public are giving away in this case. They are giving away the right to a roadway on the present Terrace. I understand that, without the Amend-
ment, they are giving away some garden space which now is enjoyed by the public. But I have not heard anything said as to what the public are to get out of this. The suggestion is that there should be a continuance of the present road which goes past the Shell-Mex building and the Savoy Hotel, but that is a continuance of a cul-de-sac, which would be no advantage. There is no evidence that the road will go through to Charing Cross.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a Third Reading speech.

Sir J. LAMB: I do not wish to infringe the Rules of the House in the least. I support the Amendment because it does preserve to the public something of the right that they now have.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I hope the House will have received with somewhat mixed feelings the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) about the statement submitted to the House by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We have received substantial assistance from the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a very helpful thing in this Assembly that the Chairman of Ways and Means can from time to time intervene in Debates on private Bills and give us such help. It comes with bad grace from any hon. Member to criticise a statement so helpful as the statement we have had.

Sir J. LAMB: I believe in maintaining my right, and I prefaced my statement by saying that I did not wish to be disrespectful either to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to the Committee.

Mr. HANNON: I do not want to enter into a controversy with my hon. Friend. I hope that the House has now arrived at a point at which a compromise can be established. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) presented his case with moderation, as he always does, and I hope that the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means can be accepted. It would be a satisfactory ending to a long controversy. I hope no one will leave the House feeling that the subject has not been examined with all the thoroughness suggested by the Chairman himself.

8.39 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: I can speak again only by leave of the House. After what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said it looks as if, with good will, it ought to be possible to reach a compromise. On the other hand everyone will realise that it is a difficult thing to fit in the Amendment with the other provision of the Bill. No one knows that better than the Chairman of Ways and Means. In the course of the Debate it is difficult to arrive precisely at the, terms of the compromise. I do not know whether it is possible within the rules of the House to adjourn the Debate for half an-hour.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not possible.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure no one will accuse me of having any arrière pensée and a wish to obstruct. I suggest that we should adjourn the Debate to-night and take it to-morrow. Meantime we should go into this matter. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that in that case we shall not raise any objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the House could take the Third Reading to-morrow. We should take such an objection to-night.

Mr. LAWSON: What about ordinary business to-morrow?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that the most important Debate of the week is on Wednesday.

Mr. LAWSON: No, coal and oil are being taken to-morrow.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If we can come to an agreement meantime, so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, we will undertake to facilitate the passage of this Bill to-morrow with the least possible delay. Otherwise the Bill will take up a lot more time to-night.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: A very important matter, so far as Scottish Members are concerned, is to be debated tomorrow.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: A word ought to be put in for Scottish Members. It is not only oil and coal that are being discussed to-morrow, but there is a Scottish Debate which we have had cut down, and we should strongly object to five minutes of the time being taken.

Sir D. HERBERT: After the consultation I have had with the Chief Government Whip and the Opposition Whip regarding the considerable difficulty of dealing not only with this but other private business this Session, I could not possibly agree to any Adjournment of this Debate.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then let me point out, in wishing to get a compromise on fair terms, the difficulties in which we find ourselves. This Amendment has been on the Paper for the last three days. It is only now, in the middle of this Debate, that we are told that the promoters are willing to come to some agreement. How is it possible with profit to go into the, question of an Amendment which my hon. Friend has been trying to draft, hoping that it may suit the case, and also to come to agreement on the substance I say for myself—some of my friends may not agree—that a nicely calculated less or more, of eight feet or 10 feet, does not really matter. The promoters ought to be thankful to get this with 10 feet instead of eight feet. I do not mean to be controversial over that. I would be prepared to agree to accept a pathway of 10 feet about the height of the present Adelphi Terrace, to the South of the new buildings, provided that if the Westminster City Council have an objection to an arcaded pathway the whole way along, it should be understood that for the centre half of it they would agree to have it open and then they could arcade it for the whole of the 50 feet at either end. I suggest that.
Personally, I am prepared to take the risk of the Westminster City Council not agreeing to a pathway, provided that on their part the promoters would be ready to meet the Westminster City Council by having 50 feet at either end arcaded and the intermediate space left open. That would make it easier for the Westminster City Council to intervene. I say with absolute conviction that this is far from being a wrecking Amendment. It goes far beyond what I personally would like in what it offers. It is an Amendment which is possible in itself. It exactly corresponds with a portion of Sir Edwin Lutyen's letter, with which I did not want to detain the House, in which he said that that kind of arrangement would be infinitely the best way of trying to construct a new building there,
with wings on either side. For my part, if the promoters agree to that proposal and on the understanding that they submit the matter to the Royal Fine Art Commission—not, I hope, to the Crown Lands Advisory Committee—I for one would take the risk involved in not pressing opposition to the Bill further. If this offer is accepted it ought to be possible to produce an Amendment which would harmonise with the other features of the Bill.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. REA: May I make a further appeal to the Chairman of Ways and Means. (We all recognise the fairness with which he has advised the House but we are undoubtedly in a difficulty. The House is asked to part with its control over this Bill on a compromise which seems extremely doubtful and which we do not thoroughly understand. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the Debate should be adjourned. I agree that the Bill cannot then be dealt with this week, but the Session does not end on Friday next and there will be a few days available in November. If those opposed to the Bill undertake to refrain from any factious opposition, the matter might be agreed upon outside the precincts of this House, one way or the other, between now and 7th November. After all, the promoters of the Bill are gaining a very important concession from the House if they get the Bill, and it should be no great detriment to them if the carrying through of their scheme is postponed until November. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to consent to an adjournment until November.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman move the Adjournment of the Debate?

Mr. REA: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

8.48 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: I may appear to be rather thin-skinned on this matter, but again I must say that I feel somewhat hardly treated when I am apparently blamed for bringing forward some suggestion of the promoters at the eleventh hour.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My right hon. Friend will acquit me of that. He is, so to speak, in the position of the
honest broker, from some points of view, in this business and we know it is not he who has landed us in this difficulty at the last moment. No one suggests that, but those who put down the Amendment gathered that it was going to be agreed to and I, personally, had no information until I got into the House that it was going to be resisted to the uttermost. That came as a complete surprise but it is abundantly clear to us that this is a new business and we never wished to make any implication against my right hon. Friend.

Sir D. HERBERT: I acquit my right hon. Friend on that score but the point which I want to put to the House is this. This is not a case of the promoters or anybody else trying to rush some new proposal through the House at the last moment. The proposal comes about simply and solely as a result of my attempting—perhaps I have been wrong or perhaps I have taken an extreme view of the duties of my position—to ease matters as between the promoters and other interested parties. It is due entirely to my initiative that the suggestion which I made in the course of the Debate is now before the House. I am afraid I must put it to the House plainly that if my efforts in that direction have failed, we must recognise the fact and deal with my right hon. Friend's Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper. Knowing as I do the danger and the difficulty of inserting a hasty Amendment in a Bill of this kind at this stage I guarded myself in the suggestion which of made to the House by offering an undertaking given here on the Floor of the House on behalf of and with the authority of the promoters. I cannot go beyond that. I do not feel that it would be fair, even if I had the revised Amendment before me at this moment to ask the promoters or myself to agree to it at once.
Therefore, it was only as what might be called a last-minute effort to meet hon. Members that I made the suggestion which I have made to the House. I cannot agree to carry it any further and I cannot agree to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I hope that my hon. Friend who moved it will be good enough to withdraw it, because I do not think it is putting the House in a position to deal with this matter satisfactorily to ask hon. Members to vote
upon it on the Motion for Adjournment. Honestly, I am bound to say, although I know it is not intended by those who put it on the Paper, that the Amendment in its present form must be regarded by the House as in a sense a wrecking Amendment. I say it was not intentional on the part of those who proposed it, but in practice it is in the nature of a wrecking Amendment for this reason —that if it is accepted and passed, to the best of my knowledge and belief the promoters will not desire to proceed with the Bill. In these circumstances I think the House would be better advised, if I may respectfully say so, to get on at the earliest possible moment to the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. That is a matter which rests with the House. The Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is of course for the House and not for me to deal, but I respectfully suggest that it might be better to withdraw that Motion. At any rate, I could not consent to it.

Mr. REA: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

8.54 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I made a specific statement of the terms which my hon. Friends and I were prepared to take and there are those here in the House who, within a minute, could communicate with the promoters on that offer, so that we might know whether or not they are prepared to take my specific and moderate proposal.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I rise to support the Amendment, and I resent strongly the superior lecturing tone of those who support the Bill. The House has a perfect right on Third Reading to discuss the Bill in all its bearings. I would like very much to have been on the committee, but I was not. Now I have my opportunity of saying what I think ought to be said, and I should like to say so without being addressed in patronising and superior tones by other Members of the House as to what my duty is. I am not disposed to beat about the bush with regard to the promoters of
this Bill. This land was, at least in the opinion of the citizens of London, stolen from the citizens.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to make a statement about the Bill, but he must do so on Third Reading, not on this Amendment.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Surely I am entitled to make the point that this land was stolen in the first instance, and that therefore we are not called upon to take measures to any great extent to help the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That seems to be exactly the point for a Third Reading Debate.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I have been authorised by the promoters of the Bill to say that they cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). This Debate has gone on a, very long time, and the promoters of the Bill have been extremely accommodating in the way they have met every kind of objection brought up by interested parties since the Bill was first brought forward—interested, that is, from a technical and historical point of view. The promoters have done their very best in every possible way to meet objections.
With regard to the Amendment, I do not think that, if it were carried, the public would gain any more than they are likely to gain under the Bill as it stands. If hon. Members examine the plan for the. new building which is proposed under the. Bill, they will observe that there Are two very important view-points, at each end of the building, which give an incomparably better view of the river than you can at present get from any part of Adelphi Terrace. Furthermore, the promoters of the Bill are prepared, I understand, to make a new roadway which goes all the way along and joins up with the existing roadway by the river. I hope, therefore, the House will refuse to accept the Amendment, and I also trust that, if the Movers of the Amendment intend to press it to a conclusion, they will not be successful.

8.59 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should have remained silent in this Debate, but the
tone adopted by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) rouses me to fury. He has the effrontery to come here and say that the promoters are accommodating, and he is asking the House to give him something for nothing. Why should we give away public rights for nothing? I protest strongly against the attempt to abolish this terrace.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I do not think hon. Members have had an experience similar to that which we have had to-night, that people promoting a private Bill, obviously for the purpose of making additional profit, are allowed by the House of Commons to bargain apparently with two sides as to whether they will accept something from this House. I hope the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) will force this Amendment to a, Division, 'and I hope further that the House will carry it, even if, as the Chairman of Ways and Means says, it is in its present form a wrecking Amendment. I have no desire to wreck any scheme that would be for the benefit of the people of London, even if it means that certain people because of that scheme get an additional profit out of it. I have read all the literature issued by the promoters and all that issued against the Bill, but the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has compelled me to come to the conclusion that the best thing for this House to do, in the interests of the people whom they represent, would be to turn down the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). I have not seen such effrontery in this House in my experience of it as the statement to which we have just listened that the promoters have acted in any way generously with regard to their attitude on this Bill. Even if it means that they are compelled to promote a new Bill in the new Session of Parliament, perhaps it will be a lesson to them and their friends in the House that they cannot treat this House with the contempt with which they appear to have treated it up to now.

9.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I would not have intervened but for the fact that there has been a tendency to try to size
up, on each side in this controversy, the relative money values either to be taken or given away, whereas, on the contrary, I feel that the merits of the Bill, and therefore of this Amendment, rest on what the public are going to get in amenities if the Bill is carried through. I think it must be agreed that if the Amendment is carried, it will wreck the Bill, because then the promoters will not wish to have anything more to do with the matter, and they will be free, on the old site, with the old restricted access, and the inconvenient streets that are of no use, to erect a New York skyscraper or some other thing which will be hideous and not serve towards the re-development which we would all like to see. In that conviction, I would like to mention one point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) spoke. He said that the promoters were going to get a great deal out of this, and the public nothing. Actually, of course, a cursory study of the plans under the Bill would show what a very great deal the public will get. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] They are going to get a new roadway from Shell-Mex House and the Savoy, and a road linking up with York Street.

Sir J. WITHERS: In exchange for a very fine roadway with a beautiful view, they will get one road down at the bottom with no view at all.

Mr. MOLSON rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) has given way, in which case the lion. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) is quite entitled to speak.

Mr. MOLSON: Does not the hon. Member realise that under the Bill that road will only end in a cul-de-sac, and that only at some subsequent time, when one of the local authorities concerned carries the road further through what are at present public gardens, it may or may not be connected with York Buildings?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I understand quite the contrary, namely, that the road will give a semi-circular sweep round York Buildings, and although that may not be made at the beginning of the scheme, it will be the only possible way
in which that part of the site can be re-planned. If I talk about re-planning, I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. They stand out as a party for the policy that it does not matter about money, if there is a real improvement for the public welfare they will support it. Here they can get a real improvement and two new viewpoints from where the public will get the alleged view of the river, and it will be pushed further forward so that the view from the two points will be even better than it was before. That cannot be contested. If this Amendment is carried, we shall be left in a state of chaos. About seven years work of adjustment and accommodation between the present promoters of the Bill and the Westminster City Council and the London County Council will be utterly wasted, and we shall be back where we were when we started. If the House wishes to seize the opportunity of helping on the Minister of Health in the work on which he started out last year by passing the Town and Country Planning Act, they will reject the Amendment and enable the House to give effect to the Bill.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who spoke for the promoters said that they had been very accommodating. I venture to think that I should be very accommodating for £125,000. If that really represents their view, it is an impertinence on the part of the promoters to come here and make any such statement to the House of Commons. I desire to support the Amendment, because I think that it will make the best of a difficult situation. I find it difficult to work myself into a state of excitement over Adelphi Terrace in its present state. My right hon. Friend quoted from Sir Herbert Baker as to the great beauty of the Adam work in the Adelphi Terrace, but you cannot see it. It has been covered by a Victorian superstructure since 1871, and it might be possible, I understand, to remove it at a cost of £15,000. Is there the least likelihood of that happening l Sir Edward Lutyens expressed the view, cutting across the architectural view, that the trees there were very beautiful and attrac-
tive, but other architectural opinion has expressed the view that the trees ought to be cut down.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I find difficulty in connecting anything in the Adam work or the trees with the Amendment before the House.

Mr. MANDER: I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising a point that comes out of the report of the Unopposed Bills Committee to the House in regard to the suggestion that, the Crown Lands Advisory Committee should approve the new building.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member might be in order on the Third Reading, but not on this Amendment.

9.9 p.m.

Captain DOWER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "always," to insert the words:
in place of the proposed new street in the centre of the building.
If this is agreed to, I shall move to insert at the end of the proposed Amendment the words,
subject to 50 feet at each end of the suggested building being arcaded.
I think that this Amendment will be acceptable to all parties and to the Westminster City Council.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do this in order that the representatives of the various interests can have time to get together and print the Amendments so that the House can see what their proposals really are. I have been coming behind the Chair and having a look and a listen every now and then—

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to suggest that hon. Members are representing interests?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We very frequently hear that suggestion.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the cap fits any hon. Gentleman, he must put it on.

AN HON. MEMBER: You try it on.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will not try it on because in this particular case I have no interest at all. I think that a very great deal of fuss is being made about this business and that we might have gone on with the discussion of the public business that was before the House, seeing that there is apparently no agreement among the promoters as to what they really want or as to what sort of compromise they are prepared to make in this matter. It seems to me that instead of our continuing to have various proposals made in the House in this fashion, the Bill ought to be put on one side until the promoters can come to a rational agreement among themselves, which the House can either accept or reject.

9.13 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: There is no doubt whatever as to the position of the promoters in regard to this Amendment and to the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more frequently behind the Chair, he would perhaps have heard that I made by way of a suggestion a proposal that an undertaking should be given on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to a certain effect. I have to say definitely that no other course will be accepted or agreed to on behalf of the promoters by way of a compromise than that which has been offered by me. So the right hon. Gentleman may definitely understand that there is nothing to be gained by adjourning the matter, and that the House is now fully competent to decide whether they propose to make this Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Chairman of Ways and Means has spoken very authoritatively, but I am not at all sure whether the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is the last or the first word on the subject. If it is true, however, that this is the limit of the concession. let us vote on it and get on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

9.15 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The reason why this Amendment to the Amendment has been put down is to secure that it is a road
way and not a footway which will be accepted by the Westminster City Council. As I understand it the Westminster City Council will not approve either a pathway or a roadway arcaded over its whole length. They have approved, on the other hand, a roadway which is tunnelled, that is to say with walls on either side, which is worse than an arcade, in the centre of the building, with an open space up to the sky in the middle. What is proposed by this Amendment is that that should be done away with, and that instead of that the whole thing should be moved to the forefront of the building—an open space of 112 feet of roadway on the front of the building, with 50 feet arcaded at each end. I have reason to believe that that would be accepted by the Westminster Council and that we could all agree.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I have listened to as much of this Debate as most other Members, and have interrupted perhaps less frequently than some of the ardent opponents of the Bill, but to have amateur architects drawing plans for us in the House of Commons seems a little stupid. Let us lock at the architectural plan on the paper which we are now being asked to amend. The proposal is to drive a carriageway through the middle of a building, which would bring all the plaster down on the floor beneath and nobody would live on the floor above. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely that is the proposal. There is great enthusiasm among hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote for a proposal which they have not tried to sketch out on paper. There is before us an Amendment to the Amendment. It is now been realised that the Amendment on the Order Paper is nonsense architecturally and nonsense from an engineering point of view, judging by the speeches in support of it, which have no relation to it. A proposal is made on behalf of the promoters by the Chairman of Ways and Means which is surely practicable from the engineering point of view, because it does not involve the movement of heavy traffic and does not involve damage to the floor below or to the floor above, and yet would preserve those amenities which we all desire to see preserved, but there is a risk that, for reasons with which
I am not familiar, the Westminster City Council may be unwilling to accept that proposal.
Then we have put forward a most extraordinary scheme which involves as to one half of it the scheme the Westminster City Council will not have, because this new scheme of Sir Edwin Lutyens involves an arcaded footpath for roughly half the distance—one quarter at each end—and a hole in the middle. I think those who are criticising this proposal ought to come forward with more substantial views; it is grossly unfair to those who are concerned with this Bill that others should at the last moment be bringing forward all kinds of fancy schemes. If they held those views the proper thing for them to do was to petition against the Bill and to appear by counsel and have their schemes submitted to proper examination. Now they come and criticise the promoters for rushing the Bill merely because they have been slow and have not brought forward their proposals earlier. This protest does not involve this Bill only, but any Bill which may be brought forward by any person who finds it necessary to come to Parliament. If a Bill can go through all its stages with nobody troubling to petition against it, and then, at the last moment, a lot of amateur architects can come forward and ask us to insert all kinds of fancy schemes, it is a degradation of the procedure of the House of Commons; and I hope that in a few minutes we shall take a Division, first of all on this most extraordinary Amendment to the Amendment, and finally reject the Amendment itself.

9.20 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is an attack on all who have really tried to meet the other side, and we are not going to lie down under it. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who generally takes the trouble to understand the case with which he is going to deal, clearly does not understand a single word of this case. He has suggested that those of us who have objected to this Bill should have taken the opportunity to appear ourselves or by counsel before the Unopposed Bill Committee.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman himself should have done that, because I imagine that he has no locus standi in
the matter. If there is a substantial body of opinion who have any connection with the district there would not have been the slightest difficulty in finding people with a locus stanch.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: The hon. Member has not remembered his dates. While the Chairman of Ways and Means sent word to one or two of those whom he thought might be interested, the Bill was taken by the Unopposed Bill Committee at such a short interval after the Second Reading that the general public and some of the societies particularly interested never knew it was being considered.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely my hon. Friend knows that this Bill was introduced months ago in another place, and every legitimate interest has had months in which to take the usual steps.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is not the point which the hon. Member made at all. He said that those who thought with us ought to have been represented by counsel in the Committee here—in the House of Commons Unopposed Bills Committee. That was the obvious purport of his observation. Perhaps he had forgotten that there was no time for the societies really to realise that the Bill was being taken. We in the House of Commons who did realise it sent letters and we were told we had no locus standi. As to the amateur architecture about which he complains, if he had put his mind more acutely into this business, as he does with other Bills, he would have realised, as to the proposal that there should be a street in the front of Adelphi Terrace, that it may have been quite true, as the Chairman of Ways and Means said, that the promoters of the Bill told him it would not be worth their while to proceed with the Bill, and that to that extent it was technically, though it was not intended to be, a wrecking Amendment, but architecturally it was perfectly possible. The first Amendment was perfectly possible. When representations were made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that it would involve a street in front in addition to the expense of the covered roadway in the middle, he carefully drew that Amendment in order to meet that difficulty. Everything has been done by putting forward Amendments which were perfectly possible architec-
turally to meet the difficulties which have been put up, and I trust that the House, when it comes to vote for the Amendment, will understand that a perfectly honest endeavour has been made to meet the difficulties advanced by the promoters.

9.25 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I say at once that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment cannot be accepted. In reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), may I say that I have no complaint to make in regard to the course which has been adopted by those supporting this Amendment? Perhaps it is only just to the right hon. Gentleman to remind the House of what I said in the beginning, that these particular bodies who are interested would have had no locus standi at all and could not have been heard before the Unopposed Bills Committee. I can only say, on the other hand, that nothing has been done in regard to this Bill outside the ordinary and well known procedure of this House. Directly the Second Reading was carried and the Instruction given to the Committee, the order for the Bill to come before an unopposed Committee was put on the Order Paper in the ordinary way, and it was open to any hon. Member to

take action. I say this merely to try to prevent any bitterness or acerbity among those who are indulging in this particular controversy. I rose to say that the position must be accepted by the House as definite and that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment must be resisted.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Why?

Sir D. HERBERT: On the instructions which I received I am obliged to say that the promoters cannot accept it.

Sir P. HARRIS: May I just ask—

Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. Member must please allow me. An appeal was made to those in charge of the Bill as to whether I could accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and my reply is, "No." That is all it comes to. I want with the greatest respect to say this in addition, in the hope that it may help the House to come to a decision. I cannot consistently with my position agree to any proposal at this moment beyond that which I have already made and which apparently is not acceptable and therefore I hope, having the issue clearly before them, the House will now agree to come to a decision.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 92; Noes, 191.

Division No. 281.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
O'Connor, Terence James


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Balniel, Lord
Hicks, Ernest George
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Rankin, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Horobin, Ian M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Burnett, John George
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cobb, Sir Cyril
John, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kirkwood, David
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Knight, Holford
Tate, Mevis Constance


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Thorne, William James


Curry, A. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Wellhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mebane, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Goldie, Noel B.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York. Don valley


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wilson, Lt.-Cal. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Magnay, Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


Granville, Edgar
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Martin, Thomas B.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'yoool)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw;k)
Sir William Davison and Sir R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Mitchell Banks.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Patrick, Collin M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pearson, William G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peat, Charles U.


Moil, Duchess of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Penny, Sir George


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Harlington, Marquess of
Renter, John R.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hartland, George A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hornby, Frank
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Brass, Captain Sir William
Horebrugh, Florence
Salt, Edward W.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Shaw, Helen B, (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Buchan, John
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jamieson, Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Clarke, Frank
Kimball, Lawrence
Soper, Richard


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Law, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lees-Jones, John
Spens, William Patrick


Conant, R. J. E.
Levy, Thomas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cooke, Douglas
Lewis, Oswald
Stevenson, James


Cowan, D. M.
Liddall, Walter S.
Storey, Samuel


Cranborne, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Strauss, Edward A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Cross, R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thompson. Lukf


Daikeith, Earl of
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Mat. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dickle, John P.
Maitland, Adam
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Donner, P. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Weymouth, Viscount


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moreing, Adrian C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


George, Major 0. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Wise, Alfred R.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Womersley, Walter James


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Normand, Wilfrid Guild



Goff, Sir Park
North, Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William
Lieut.-Commander Agnew and


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Owen, Major Goronwy
Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 196.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[9.39 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Burnett, John George
Dabble, William


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Edwards, Charles


Asks, Sir Robert William
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Balniel, Lord
Cove, William G.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Banfield, John William
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Goldle, Noel B.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Capps, Sir Stafford
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Batey, Joseph
Curry, A. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dagger, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Briant, Frank
Davison, Sir William Henry
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)




Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mabane, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hales, Harold K.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Harris, Sir Percy
Magnay, Thomas
Thorne, William James


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Tinker, John Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K (B'rwick-on-T.)


Hirst, George Henry
Martin, Thomas B.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Maxton, James.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Horobin, Ian M.
Milner, Major James
White, Henry Graham


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Janner, Barnett
O'Connor, Terence James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


John, William
Parkinson, John Alien
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Kirkwood, David
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Withers, Sir John James


Knight, Holford
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rankin, Robert
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rathbone, Eleanor



Lawson, John James
Rea, Waiter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leonard, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Mr. Molson and Captain Dower.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fuller. Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monseil, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Athol', Duchess of
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Moreing, Adrian C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gluckntein, Louis Halle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Goff, Sir Park
Moss, Captain H. J.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupon
Gower, Sir Robert
Munro, Patrick


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nall, Sir Joseph


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Greaten, E. C. (City of London)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Blindell, James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
North, Edward T.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Patrick, Colin M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peat, Charles U.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ray, Sir William


Buchan, John
Hornby, Frank
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clarke, Frank
Joel, Dudley J. Barneto
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salt, Edward W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kimball, Lawrence
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Conant, R. J. E.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cooke, Douglas
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Copeland, Ida
Lees-Jones, John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cowan, D. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Levy, Thomas
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smithers, Waldron


Daikeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerven, Donald Bradley


Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Soper, Richard


Dickie, John P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Donner, P. W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Drewe, Cedric
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Maitland, Adam
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stevenson, James


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Storey, Samuel


Einney, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thompson, Luke


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles




Thorp, Linton Theodore
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Alfred R.


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Walter James


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Weymouth, Viscount
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Lieut.-Commander Agnew and


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen.


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would only say that, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been opposing this Bill make up their minds that the Divisions which have taken place have in effect settled the fate of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am saying that, if they do, I hope they will allow this Motion as regards the suspension of Standing Orders to be carried without a Division; if they desire further to debate the Third Reading, that Debate may be entered upon at once, in view of the short time that now remains. That is the only object of the Motion—in order that we may get on as soon as we can.

9.46 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In any ordinary circumstances I should have been willing to allow this suspension of the Standing Orders to pass unchallenged, but on the present occasion, speaking for myself, I would not dream of doing so, and I would ask others who have voted in the recent Divisions in favour of the Amendment which we proposed not to allow it to pass either. The object of these Standing Orders, when they were passed, was to enable Members of the House of Commons to have sufficient time in which to consider the subject-matter of Private Bills, and to be able to take into judgment all that they could gather about them.
This evening it has been made abundantly clear that what was wanted on this occasion was that there should really be some agreement, when at one point we seemed to be very near to coming to an agreement. Had it only been possible for us this afternoon—I am speaking now against suspending the Standing Orders, and against curtailing the time that Members should have at their disposal for considering the merits of a Bill before proceeding to the next stage of the discussion—to have had a little more time, it might have been possible to arrive at an understanding which would have pre-
vented any further controversy about the merits of the Bill. I think that, had we been able to meet outside with the promoters, it might perhaps have been done. I cannot, however, be sure about, that, because we made one attempt after another from these benches, each of them an absolutely sincere attempt, to meet what the promoters put forward. In each case we met with ill-success. An offer was made to us by the Chairman of Ways and Means, which he said he thought the promoters might perhaps accept, though he did not think that in the end it would be permitted by the Westminster City Council. We just tried to amend that so as to ensure the possibility of its being taken by the city council, but we were met with an everlasting "Nay," which appeared to come from outside the precincts of the House.
The House has been put through a process which cannot have enlightened hon. Members, but which must have only left them bewildered as to the true merits of the Bill, and, indeed, some Members of the House happened not to be here during the earlier stages when these Amendments were debated. That being the case, I think that this is a most unsuitable occasion on which to suspend Standing Orders which were devised for the purpose of giving Members of the House time and opportunity to realise the merits of the question upon which they were pronouncing opinions. Therefore, in my view—and I think that probably it will be the view of all other Members of the House—we ought not to allow these Standing Orders to be suspended on the present occasion. I sincerely hope that if, as I trust will be the case, the Standing Orders are not suspended, when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill those Members who have not been present during to-night's discussion will have had time to reflect upon the true merits of the contentions which have been made on either side, and I am sure that, if they do so, they will see that what we proposed went a long way beyond what we should have liked, in order to reach peace and agreement on the subject of the Bill.
If hon. Members will think over the matter calmly, instead of in the somewhat heated atmosphere which always ensues after these discussions and excursions and alarums, they will be able to give a vote on the final stage of the Bill of which they would in their cooler judgment afterwards approve, instead of one which they might now give in heat, and of which they might repent at leisure. [Laughter.] There are some hon. Members who laugh, because they seem to think that they would never alter their minds about anything on reflection, and I can hardly venture to appeal to those who make up their minds in that way, especially if they have not had the opportunity of being present during the earlier stages and of listening to the discussions. It is, perhaps, of no use to appeal to them, but for the sake of all others I most sincerely hope that these Standing Orders will not be suspended to-night. All that that will mean will be that there will intervene one clear day before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that that is not too much to ask. At an earlier stage this evening we were told that it might jeopardise the passage of the Bill, but I cannot believe that that would be the case. It would only jeopardise the passage of the Bill if the Session came to an end during this week, so that there was no time to pass it, and if it were also impossible to provide that a private Bill should be carried over into 'a new Session. It seems to be clear already that the Session is not going to end next Friday, but that we are going to meet again, when there will be ample opportunity, even though the concluding days of the Session when we meet again are short. There will be ample opportunity, if need be, for the concluding stages of the Bill to be taken then.
On the other hand, although it may not be within the actual memory of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I believe there is a precedent, not only for carrying over a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill into a new Session if there is not time to take it in the existing Session, but for carrying over a private Bill 'also. I believe that that was the case with regard to a Railway Bill. Naturally, in the confusion of to-night, I have not had time to look up precedents, but I believe that that is the case; and, if that be so, there is every conceivable reason for allowing Members of the House to have
what is their undoubted right under the Standing Orders, namely, one clear day between the Report stage of the Bill and the Third Reading, and for not suspending these Standing Orders for the purpose of taking 'away that right from them. I make this appeal from the point of view of those who have received encouragement from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but, I am bound to say, have received extraordinarily scant encouragement from 'any other quarter. I ask that we should have our right of consideration preserved without the matter being pressed unnecessarily quickly.

9.56 p.m.

Sir D. HERBERT: I suggest to the House that they have already heard almost all the arguments that I can imagine against the Third Reading and, therefore, I only want to ask the House to listen to two or three sentences in regard to the question of suspending the Standing Orders and reading the Bill a Third time forthwith. If it is passed in its present form, substantial advantages are obtained for the general public in that two viewpoints upon the river are preserved for ever.

Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the merits of the Bill or the question whether the Standing Orders should be suspended? Are we to be allowed to discuss the whole issue on this Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Third Reading is included in the Motion.

Sir D. HERBERT: Under the Bill as it stands there is considerable control as to the sort of building that may be put up in its place and, if hon. Members desire to preserve the view over the river and to have some kind of control as to the appearance of the new building, there is no question that they retain those advantages if they pass the Bill and, if they do not pass it, they do not retain those advantages. It is my duty to put that matter before the House, and that is all that I want to say on this question at present.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I hope that many Members who do not agree with the opponents of the Bill on the merits will join with us in opposing the suspending of the Standing Orders.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 110.

Division No. 283.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peat, Charles U.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grant ell, E. C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'1. W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ray, Sir William


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Bouiton, W. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Robinson, John Roland


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ropner, Colonel L


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hornby, Frank
Ross, Ronald D.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Brig -Gen. H C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Buchan, John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jamieson, Douglas
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Scone, Lord


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Kimball, Lawrence
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Law, Sir Alfred
Smiles, Lieut.-Col, Sir Walter D.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, R. W. (Aderd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarke, Frank
Lees-Jones, John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Marry, Reginald George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Levy, Thomas
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lewis, Oswald
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Liddell, Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Colman, N. C. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ken
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Conant, R. J. E.
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. He. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cowan, D. M.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Spens, William Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stevenson, James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Batsetlaw)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Daikeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, Adam
Thompson, Luke


Dickie, John P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Orewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duggan, Hubert John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Eimley, Viscount
Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Meriting, Adrian C.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardin. S.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H (Denbigh)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Falls. Sir Bertram G.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Flint, Abraham John
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Nail, Sir Joseph
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
North, Edward T.
Womersley, Waiter James


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nunn, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Patrick, Colin M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen


Goff, Sir Park
Pearson, William G.
and Lieut.-Commander Agnew.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Martin, Thomas B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.


Applin, Lieut.-Col, Reginald V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milner, Major James


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Brif'd & Chisw'k)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Connor. Terence James


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Grimston, R. V.
Parkinson, John Alien


Balniel, Lord
Groves, Thomas E.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Haler, Harold K.
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Hicks, Ernest George
Savory, Samuel Servington


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Burnett, John George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Cape, Thomas
Horohin, Ian M.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Danner, Barnett
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cassels, James Dale
John, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merieneth)
Storey, Samuel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Tinker, John Joseph


Cross, R. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Curry, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Wellhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
White, Henry Graham


Dabble, William
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Mebane, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Withers, Sir John James


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)



Goidle, Noel B.
Magnay, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. Molson and Mr. Bernays.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Question put accordingly, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. MANDER: (seated and covered): I wish to raise a point of Order. I desire to know whether there will be any opportunity for debating the Third Reading of this
this Bill in connection with the Motion now before this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House has already decided that the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," should be put, and there can be no opportunity for a discussion upon it.

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 97.

Division No. 284]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan, John
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Daikeith, Earl of


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davies, M a). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dawson, Sir Philip


Balfour. George (Hampstead)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dickie, John P.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Carver, Major William H.
Donner, P. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cassels, James Dale
Drewe, Cedric


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portam'th, C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Eastwood, John Francis


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blindell, James
Clarke, Frank
Eimley, Viscount


Boulton, W. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Emmett, Charles E. G. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle Sir Bertram G.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Conant, R. J. E.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cooke, Douglas
Fox, Sir Gifford


Broadbent, Colonel John
Copeland, Ida
Fraser, Captain Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cowan, D. M.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Cranborne, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John




Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Salt, Edward W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Scone, Lord


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Adam
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, R. W. (aberd'n & Kinedine, C.)


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milner, Major James
Somerville, D G. (Willesden, East)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Soper, Richard


Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Lt,-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hanbury, Cecil
Moreing, Adrian C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spans, William Patrick


Hartington, Marquess of
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick
Stevenson, James


Hellgers, Captain F F. A.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Storey, Samuel


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hornby, Frank
North, Edward T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilgfrid Hart


Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thompson, Luke


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Patrick, Colin M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pearson, William G.
Todd, A. L. S. (KingswInford)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peat, Charles U.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jamleson, Douglas
Petherick, M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


K err, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsden, Sir Eagane
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Kimball, Lawrence
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Leckie, J. A.
Remer, John R.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lees-Jones, John
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Weymouth, Viscount


Levy, Thomas
Robinson. John Roland
Whiteside, Boreal Noel H.


Lewis, Oswald
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Liddell, Waiter S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G.(Wc1.Gr'n)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Womersley, Walter James


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen


McCorquodale, M. S.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
and Lieut.-Commander Agnew.




NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
bobble, William
Janner, Barnett


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
John, William


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Edwards, Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Asks, Sir Robert William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, David


Bainiel, Lord
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Banfield, John William
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Goldie, Noel B.
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Leonard, William


Bernays, Robert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Briant, Frank
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mebane, William


Burnett, John George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Magnay, Thomas


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cross, R. H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)
Martin, Thomas B.


Curry, A. C.
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James.


Dagger, George
Hirst, George Henry
Mitchell, Harold P.(Brtf'd & Chlew'k)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
O'Connor, Terence James


Davison, Sir William Henry
Horobin, Ian M.
Parkinson, John Allen




Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Price, Gabriel
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Thorne, William James



Rea, Walter Russell
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-n-T.)
Sir A. Steel-Maitland and Mr.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wellhead, Richard C.
Molson.


Savery, Samuel Servington
White, Henry Graham

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £37,939,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the

year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

It being after Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,938,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 316.

Division No. 285.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Demote)


Debbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.




Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Borodale, Viscount
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Colfox, Major William Philip


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Conant, R. J. E.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooke, Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briant, Frank
Copeland, Ida


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cowan, D. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown.Brig -G en. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Crookshank, Col. C de Windt (Bootie)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Burnett, John George
Cross, R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crossley, A. C.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Curry, A. C.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Daikeith, Earl of


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Carver, Major William H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cassels, James Dale
Davison, Sir William Henry


Berm, Sir Arthur Shirley
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dicke, John P.


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Donner, P. W.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Doran, Edward


Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman
Clarke, Frank
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Blindell, James
Clarry, Reginald George
Drewe, Cedric


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Ross, Ronald D.


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duncan,James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Eastwood, John Francis
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Runge, Norah Cecil


Eden, Robert Anthony
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Eimley, Viscount
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. H n. G. (Wd. G'n)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Evans. Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Salt, Edward W.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mabane, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'cflne, C.)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maitland, Adam
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smithers. Waldron


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Goidle, Noel B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Soper, Richard


Gower, Sir Robert
Martin, Thomas B.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W).
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Spans, William Patrick


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stevenson, James


Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Storey, Samuel


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris. Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hanbury, Cecil
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Harris, Sir Percy
Nail, Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke


Hartington, Marquess of
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
North, Edward T.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
O'Connor, Terence James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turton, Robert Hugh


Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Ward, LL-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horobin, Ian M.
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins. Walter R. D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Weymouth, Viscount


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
White, Henry Graham


Jamleson, Douglas
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Janner, Barnett
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnetto
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ray, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wise, Alfred R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid. James S. C. (Stirling)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Remer. John R.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Law, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



Leckie, J. A.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lees-Jones, John
Robinson, John Roland
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Womersley,


Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas



Original Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the

total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate, and the total amounts of the Votes
outstanding in, the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army, and Air, be granted for the Services defined in, those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.

CLASS I.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,266,854, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. House of Lords Offices
25,094


2. House of Commons
222,502


3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts
165,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
184,726


5. Privy Council Office
7,113


6. Charity Commission
25,699


7. Civil Service Commission
16,312


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
90,810

£


9. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,989


10. Government Actuary
1,009


11. Government Chemist
46,707


12. Government Hospitality
4,000


13. The Mint
. 100,000


14. National Debt Office
383


15. National Savings Committee
54,381


16. Public Record Office
24,403


17. Public Works Loan Commission
90


18. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
42,149


19. Royal Commissions, etc.
46,190


20. Miscellaneous Expenses
630


21. Secret Service
100,000


22. Treasury Chest Fund
12,428


23. Scottish Office
52,429


24. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
18,810



£1,266,854."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 320; Noes, 46.

Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hornby, Frank
Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Horobin, Ian M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Horebrugh, Florence
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smith, R. W.(ab'rd'n Kinc'dine, C.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smithers, Waldron


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Morrison. William Shepherd
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somerville, Arnesley A (Windsor)


James, Wing.-Corn. A. W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Jamieson, Douglas
Nail, Sir Joseph
Soper, Richard


Danner, Barnett
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sotheron-Eatcourt, Captain T. E.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke N ew'gton)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
North, Edward T.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nunn, William
Spans, William Patrick


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
O'Connor, Terence James
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Kimball, Lawrence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Patrick, Colin M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Lamb, Sir Joseph Guinton
Pearson, William G.
Stevenson, James


Law, Sir Alfred
Peat, Charles U.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Leckie,J. A.
Penny, Sir George
Storey, Samuel


Lees-Jones, John
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Levy, Thomas
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lewis, Oswald
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Liddall, Walter S.
H. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thompson, Luke


Litter, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffs-
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rathbone, Eleanor
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ray, Sir William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rea, Walter Russell
Tumors, Robert Hugh


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mebane, William
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Robinson, John Roland
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McEwen, Captain J. H, F.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wells, Sydney Richard


McKie, John Hamilton
Ross, Ronald D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
White, Henry Graham


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mag nay, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Maitland, Adam
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liver'l)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margeseon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.
Wise, Alfred R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sandemen, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Martin, Thomas B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savery, Samuel Servington



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Scone, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Brtf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Womersley,

Division No. 2861
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Albery, Irving James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'1, W.)
Carver, Major William H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cassels, James Dale
Fielden, Edward Brocklehuret


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarke, Frank
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Clarry, Reginald George
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Atholl, Duchess of
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Collox, Major William Philip
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Balniel, Lord
Conant, R. J. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cooke, Douglas
Goldie, Noel B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Copeland, Ida
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cowan, D. M.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)


Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Bonn. Sir Arthur Shirley
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddfesbro',W.)


Bernays, Robert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grimston, R. V.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cross, R. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Birchall. Major Sir John Dearman
Crossley, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Blindell, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Borodale, Viscount
Curry, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Boulton, W. W.
Daikeith, Earl of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hales, Harold K.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo
Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zeti'nd)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dickle, John P.
Hanbury, Cecil


Briant, Frank
Donner, P. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Drewe, Cedric
Harris, Sir Percy


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hartington, Marquess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duggan, Hubert John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Eastwood, John Francis
Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton)


Buchan, John
Eden, Robert Anthony
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emmett, Charles E. G. C.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Burnett, John Geoge
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Banfleld, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Graham.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

CLASS 11.

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,605,981, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Foreign Office
124,278


2. Diplomatic and Consular Services
664,060


3. League of Nations
84,900


4. Dominions Office
34,450


5. Dominion Services
50,163


6. Irish Free State Services
1,149,447

£


7. Empire Marketing
130,000


8. Oversea Settlement
29,325


9. Colonial Office
97,704


10. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
462,079


11. Colonial Development Fund, &c.
250,000


12. India Office
95,695


13. Imperial War Graves Commission
433,880



£3,605,981

"Question put.

The Committee divided Ayes, 318; Noes, 45.

Division No. 287.]
AYES.
[10.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Colfax, Major William Philip
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Colman, N. C. Do
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Conant, R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Copeland, Ida
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Courthepe, Colonel Sir George L.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Asks, Sir Robert William
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Harris, Sir Percy


Atholl, Duchess of
Cross, R. H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curry, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Daikeith, Earl of
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bainiel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hellgers, captain F. F. A.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeavil)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holdsworth, Herbert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dickie, John P.
Hon-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Donner, P. W.
Hornby, F rank


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Doran, Edward
Horabin, Ian M.


Senn. Sir Arthur Shirley
Draws, Cedric
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, Robert
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Blinder], James
Eastwood, John Francis
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Borodale, Viscount
Elmley, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jamieson, Douglas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Janner, Barnett


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Briant, Frank
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Nevegton)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Kimball, Lawrence


Brow n, Brig.-G en. N.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Knox, Sir Alfred


Buchan, John
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Law, Sir Alfred


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Leckie, J. A.


Burnett, John George
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lees-Jones, John


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Levy, Thomas


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lewis, Oswald


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Liddall, Walter S.


Carver, Major William H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cassels, James Dale
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Rt. Hon. air P4114 Cunilffe-


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goldie, Noel B.
Lloyd. Geoffrey


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (W d. G'n)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de vere


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Clarke, Frank
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Grimston, R. V.
Mabane, William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gritten, W. G. Howard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spens, William Patrick


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ramadan, Sir Eugene
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (westmorland)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rankin, Robert
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Stevenson, James


McKie, John Hamilton
Ray, Sir William
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rea, Waiter Russell
Storey, Samuel


McLean, Dr, W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Maitland, Adam
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Berner, John R.
Sugden, Sir WORM Hart


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thompson, Luke


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Robinson, John Roland
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Martin, Thomas B.
Ross, Ronald D.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Runge, North Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


M Itchell, Harold P.(Brif'd & Chisw'k)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wells, Sydney Richard


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Scone, Lord
Weymouth, Viscount


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
White, Henry Graham


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay)


North, Edward T.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nunn, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


O'Connor, Terence James
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


0-Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Patrick, Colin M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dinc, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pearson, William G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Alfred R.


Peat, Charles U.
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, Walter James


Penny, Sir George
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'y'noaks)


Petherlck, M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Pickier Hon. Mary Ada
Soper, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Pownall, Sir Assheton
E. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Commander Southby.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.




NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Half, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Gamete)


Debbie, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.




Graham.

CLASS III.

" That a sum, not exceeding £8,235,748, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class Ill of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Home Office
307,251


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
43,047

£


19. Supreme Court of Judicature &c., Northern Ireland
2,010


20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
1,172,739



£8,235,748"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 44.

CLASS IV.

"That a sum, not exceeding £31,910,432, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Board of Education
26,561,901


2. British Museum
98,529


3. British Museum (Natural History)
58.504


4. Imperial War Museum
7,575


5. London Museum
3,606


6. National Gallery
15,614


7. National Portrait Gallery
5,079

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 44.

Division No. 288]
AYES.
[10.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cross, R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer


Allen, William (Stoke-on. Trent)
Crossley, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Curry, A. C.
Hornby, Frank


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Daikeith, Earl of
Horobin, Ian M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Horsbrug h, Florence


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
pickle, John P.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Donner, P. W.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Doran, Edward
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bainiel, Lord
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Drewe, Cedric
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jamleson, Douglas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duggan, Hubert John
Janner, Barnett


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Eastwood, John Francis
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Been, Sir Arthur Shirley
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bernays, Robert
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kimball, Lawrence


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bilndell, James
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Borodale, Viscount
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Law, Sir Alfred


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leckie, J. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
False, Sir Bertram G.
Lees-Jones, John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Levy, Thomas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lewis, Oswald


Briant, Frank
Fox, Sir Gifford
Liddall, Walter S.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Locker-Lampson, Rt. H n. G. (Wd. G'n)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Buchan, John
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lacier, Captain J. de Vere


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burain, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mabane, William


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gower, Sir Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Carver, Major William H.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cassels, James Dale
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macdonald Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grenfelf, E. C. (City of London)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
McKie, John Hamilton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Magnay, Thomas


Clarke, Frank
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Maitland, Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hales, Harold K.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Colfax, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.


Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Copeland, Ida
Harris, Sir Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cowan, D. M.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd A Chisw'k)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Malson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Robinson, John Roland
Storey, Samuel


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Com. J. T. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Roes, Ronald D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morrison, William Shepherd
Rothschild, James A. de
Tate, Mavis Constance


Moss, Captain H. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thompson. Luke


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nail, Sir Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Livep'l)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


North, Edward T.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nunn, William
Salt, Edward W.
Turton, Robert Hugh


O'Connor, Terence James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Patrick, Colin M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pearson, William G.
Scone, Lord
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peat, Charles U.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Penny, Sir George
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Petherick, M
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verhopt'n,Bilst'n)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Weymouth, Viscount


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
White, Henry Graham


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlnc, C.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smithers, Waldron
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Ramsbotham, Herweid
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
1Allson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rankin. Robert
Soper, Richard
Wise, Alfred R.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Sotheron-Eetcourt, Captain T. E.
Womersley, Walter James


Ray, Sir William
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rea, Walter Russell
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Young, Rt. Hon, Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Soon, William Patrick



Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Stevenson, James
Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hail, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr, Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Graham.

Division No. 289.]
AYES.
[11.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eastwood, John Francis
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Eimley, Viscount
Mabane, William


Allen, Lt.-Col. 1. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Penick)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mate)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Asks, Sir Robert William
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Atholl, Duchess of
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bainiel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Magnay, Thomas


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Maitland, Adam


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Galbraith, James Francis
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Wallace Ganzoni, Sir John
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Belt, SW Alfred L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Berney, Robert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goff, Sir Perk
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Blundell, James
Goldle, Noel B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Borodale, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mulls, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bossom, A. C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Harold P.(Brif'd & Chisw'k)


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Briant, Frank
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro. Patrick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'Y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Buchan, John
Hammersly, Samuel S.
North, Edward T.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, Cecil
Nunn. William


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, Terence James


Burnett, John George
Harris, Sir Percy
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hartington, Marquess of
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Harvey, George (Lambeth.Kenningt'n)
Pearson, William G.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Haslam, Henry (Horncasfle)
Peat, Charles U.


Carver, Major William H.
Hallam, Sir John (Bolton)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cassels, James Dale
Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clarke, Frank
Hornby, Frank
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Horobin, Ian M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Horshrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rankin, Robert


Colman, N. C. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cooke, Douglas
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Copeland, Ida
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cowan, D. M.
Jamieson, Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
tanner, Barnett
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cranborne, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Remer. John R


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rentonl, Sir Gervais S.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Robinson, John Roland


Cross, R. H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross, Ronald D.


Curry, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Daikeith, Earl of
Leckie, J. A.
Rothschild, James A. do


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Levy. Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dickie, John P.
Liddell, Waiter S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Doran, Edward
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)
Salt, Edward W.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart




Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Scone, Lord
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stevenson, James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Storey, Samuel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Weymouth, Viscount


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
White, Henry Graham


Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dinc, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smithers, Waldron
Thompson, Luke
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Henrtf'd)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George


Soper, Richard
Touche, Gordon Cosine
Wise, Alfred R.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'sonoake)


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Sir George Penny and Mr.




Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvii)
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Grippe, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dabble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

"That a sum, not exceeding £73,761,628, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Ministry of Health
13,200,445


2. Board of Control
83,891


3. Registrar-General's Office
64,419


4. National Insurance Audit Department
108,390


5. Friendly Societies Registry
31,194


6. Old Age Pensions
25,375,000


7. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
8,000,000


8. Ministry of Labour
22,593,000


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,600,000


Scotland.



10. Department of Health
1,682,265


11. General Board of Control
10,923


12. Registrar-General's Office
12,101



£73,761,628"

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £6,367,758, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the
sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:—

£


1. Board of Trade
104,911


2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
90


3. Mercantile Marine Services
239,591


4. Department of Overseas Trade
245,478


5. Export Credits
90


7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
21,520


8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
1,165,624


9. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
81,965


10. Surveys of Great Britain.
81,965


11. Forestry Commission
300,000


12. Ministry of Transport
30,796


13. Development Fund
240,000


14. Development Grants
700,000


15. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
337,281


16. State Management Districts
90


Scotland.


18. Fishery Board
50,322



£6,367,758"

CLASS VII.

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,916,405, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:—

£


1. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £100)
156,960


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
78,400


3. Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain
398,935


4. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £100).
110,425


5. Osborne
9,860


6. Office of Works and Public Buildings.
379,660


7. Public Buildings, Great Britain
712,800


8. Publio Buildings, Overseas
70,150


9. Royal Palaces
48,495


10. Revenue Buildings
864,715


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
119,890


12. Rates on Government Property
976,502


13. Stationery and Printing
940,213


14. Peterhead Harbour
13,000


15. Works and Buildings in Ireland
36,400



£4,916,405"

CLASS VIII.

"That a sum, not exceeding £30,267,418, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
212,282


2. Ministry of Pensions
28,200,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary 896,057 Pensions, &c.
896,057


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
959,079



£30,267,418"

CLASS IX.

"That a sum, not exceeding £27,811,253, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,055,000,


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,756,253



£27,811,253"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1933.

"That a sum, not exceeding £8,218,885, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect; of the; Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£


1. Customs and Excise
3,464,300


2. Inland Revenue
4,754,585



£8,218,885"

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1933.

"That a sum, not exceeding £35,692,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

£


3. Medical Establishments and Services
369,800


4. Fleet Air Arm
1,089,000


5. Educational Services
198,500


6. Scientific Services
474,500


7. Royal Naval Reserves
355,500


8. Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel
6,176,400


Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Materiel
4,579,200


Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work
7,635,700


9. Naval Armaments
4,024,100


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
560,000


12. Admiralty Office
1,090,200


13. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers
3,178,200


14. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
4,889,100


15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities
1,073,200



£35,692,900"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1933.

"That a sum, not exceeding £16,891,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:

£


2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
4,740,000


3. Medical Services
888,000


4. Educational Establishments
778,000


5. Quartering and Movements
1,232,000


6. Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts
3,958,000


7. Clothing
918,000


8. General Stores
1,137,000


9. Warlike Stores
2,437,000


12. War Office
803,000


Ordnance Factories
100



£16,891,100"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1933.

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,013,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£


2. Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation
1,487,000


5. Medical Services
285,00


6. Technical Training and Educational Services
384,000


7. Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
464,000


9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
358,000


10, Air Ministry
645,000

£



11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
390,000



£4,013,000"

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, the Sum of £314,911,994 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Margesson.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-rnorrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.